Folks,
I'd just like to summarize a few points, which reinforce the claim I
made earlier: There is an open-ended number of different variations of
nonmonotonic logic, and it's impossible to adopt a one-size-fits-all
solution for nonmonotonic logic.
To paraphrase Tolstoy, every happy logic (i.e
At 10:35 PM -0400 6/26/08, Bob Futrelle wrote:
If I have a database of *all* employees in a company and a query for a
person returns nothing, then that failure allows me to assert that
that person is not an employee.
As long as you know that the database has that all-encompassing
quality, yes.
If I have a database of *all* employees in a company and a query for a
person returns nothing, then that failure allows me to assert that
that person is not an employee. It's a matter of deciding what your
universe of discourse is, is it not?
- Bob Futrelle
At 6:31 PM -0400 6/26/08, Ogbuji, Chimezie wrote:
Hey, Pat. Comments below
> I would disagree about this case being the exception.
Negation as failure can be validly used to infer from a
failure if the data is controlled (which is especially the
case with well-designed experiments where it w
Hey, Pat. Comments below
> I would disagree about this case being the exception.
>Negation as failure can be validly used to infer from a
>failure if the data is controlled (which is especially the
>case with well-designed experiments where it would be
>irresponsible to to do
2008/6/27 Dan Brickley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Orri Erling wrote:
>>
>> As providers of RDF database software, also for the life sciences
>> community,
>> we find this list a useful resource for maintaining a feel for the use
>> cases
>> and requirements as they emerge. I would be in favor of le
.
Another aspect is to use executable English descriptions of
predicates [1] that depend on NAF.
Then, an answer can be of the form "Based on the data available up
to 20080626...", and it can be explained in English too.
Whoa, slow down. If you say this kind of thing explicitly, the
At 4:05 PM -0400 6/26/08, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
Just a quick comment. Pat H. wrote
[[
The basic snag with negation as failure is that it is almost always
not valid. It is simply wrong. The cases where you can validly
infer, from a failure to prove P, that P is false, are extremely
rare. The
descriptions of predicates [1]
that depend on NAF.
Then, an answer can be of the form "Based on the data available up to
20080626...", and it can be explained in English too.
Cheers, -- Adrian
[1] Internet Business Logic
A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Execu
Just a quick comment. Pat H. wrote
[[
The basic snag with negation as failure is that it is almost always not
valid. It is simply wrong. The cases where you can validly infer, from a
failure to prove P, that P is false, are extremely rare. They only occur in
specialized circumstances in specializ
These are being presented by Vipul:
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLS/ClinicalObservationsInteroperability?action=Att
achFile&do=get&target=BrainstormingSlides.ppt
===
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of th
Are here:
http://www.w3.org/2008/talks/0616-CWI/HCLS
-Scott
Orri Erling wrote:
As providers of RDF database software, also for the life sciences community,
we find this list a useful resource for maintaining a feel for the use cases
and requirements as they emerge. I would be in favor of leaving this list
open to the public.
A model that has proved s
At 9:44 AM -0400 6/26/08, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="=_NextPart_000_037A_01C8D771.454BF020"
Content-Language: en-us
Pat -
Is there a logic defined somewhere that includes both types of
negation as logical operators?: 'NotProven' and 'Pr
As providers of RDF database software, also for the life sciences community,
we find this list a useful resource for maintaining a feel for the use cases
and requirements as they emerge. I would be in favor of leaving this list
open to the public.
Orri Erling
OpenLink Software
-Original
Adrian,
I sent off my previous note before your addition. But I'd like
to respond to it:
AW> ... what about SQL? Much of our commercial and scientific life
> depends on it, and it undoubtedly uses negation as "failure to prove".
>
> Are you saying that we should move all commercial databases
At 8:08 AM -0400 6/26/08, Adrian Walker wrote:
Hi Pat --
I hesitate to debate with such a distinguished logician as yourself.
Ah, if only it were true...
However, what about SQL? Much of our commercial and scientific life
depends on it, and it undoubtedly uses negation as "failure to
prove
Adrian and Pat,
I agree with Pat's comments, but I'd like to add a few more points.
AW> The CL and IKL approach [is] deprecated: infeasible for this
> group [W3C Rule Interchange], as major differences appeared
> irreconcilable (e.g. non-mon vs. mon)
That statement is misleading to the point o
I am not an active participant, but I am an active lurker. I find the
discussions very important and useful. It would be a pity that membership is
required; if such a policy is implemented the resulting mailing list
wouldn't be the same as it wouldn't receive the input from a broader
community; by
Hi Pat --
I hesitate to debate with such a distinguished logician as yourself.
However, what about SQL? Much of our commercial and scientific life depends
on it, and it undoubtedly uses negation as "failure to prove".
Are you saying that we should move all commercial databases to a different
qu
- Apologies for cross posting -
Bio-Ontologies 2008: Knowledge in Biology - Sunday 20th July-
a SIG at Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology (ISMB) 2008
*^**^***^^^^^^^^^^*^**^***^**
**THE PROGRAMME IS NOW AVAILABLE**
http://bio-ontologies.org.uk/down
21 matches
Mail list logo
