Re: technical detail feedback on OWL Rules: truth value for empty consequent

• Previous message: pat hayes: "Re: Joint Committee telecon tomorrow 4 November"
• In reply to: pat hayes: "Re: technical detail feedback on OWL Rules: truth value for empty consequent"
• Next in thread: Benjamin Grosof: "Re: technical detail feedback on OWL Rules: truth value for empty consequent"
• Reply: Benjamin Grosof: "Re: technical detail feedback on OWL Rules: truth value for empty consequent"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

> Remove the condition that a consequent is a conjunction. Its never a 
> conjunction, except as syntactic sugar for a conjunction of rules 
> each with a singleton-disjunction consequent.

It needs to be a conjunction to get Horn expressivity using
existentials scoped inside the consequent, right?

      -- sandro

• Next message: Benjamin Grosof: "Re: technical detail feedback on OWL Rules: truth value for empty consequent"
• Previous message: pat hayes: "Re: Joint Committee telecon tomorrow 4 November"
• In reply to: pat hayes: "Re: technical detail feedback on OWL Rules: truth value for empty consequent"
• Next in thread: Benjamin Grosof: "Re: technical detail feedback on OWL Rules: truth value for empty consequent"
• Reply: Benjamin Grosof: "Re: technical detail feedback on OWL Rules: truth value for empty consequent"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 11/04/03 EST