From: Jim Hendler ([email protected])
Date: 06/06/01
>.
>
>On using a daml reasoner to find inconsistencies, I think this is a good
>use, and in fact one that at least some of us would have intended. Jim
>has consistently said that we should not expect all daml reasoners to be
>complete thus one should not expect all daml reasoners to find all
>logical inconsistencies. However one could choose a complete daml
>reasoner to solve the problem if completeness is required. Also, if one
>could be satisfied finding SOME of the inconsistencies, I would expect a
>lot of reasoners to be able to find things that are say instances of two
>disjoint partitions.
Just to be clear - Jim has consistently said that we should not
expect all DAML reasoners to be ?X forall ?x :-> Seriously, I agree
that there is a role for consistent/closed world reasoners and proof
checkers in some cases, I just want to make sure we don't end up with
a system where you have to use them this way - remember my slogan at
the kickoff meeting - on the web there is "no THE"
-JH
p.s. Above could also be my comment on the rules controversy -seems
to me we're producing XORs rather than ORs - we should be building
multiple proposals and then figuring out what we want to recommend
out...
Dr. James Hendler [email protected]
Chief Scientist, DARPA/ISO 703-696-2238 (phone)
3701 N. Fairfax Dr. 703-696-2201 (Fax)
Arlington, VA 22203 http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST