Rule Syntax & Implication
January 25, 2006Have, mostly by accident, been having an interesting discussion on the Jena-dev mailing list on the understanding of ‘implication’.
Given A -> (B -> C), and understanding that -> represent defeasible implication, I read this as “A suggests that B implies C”. Dave’s point, correctly I think, is that some of the time, you need either A to _definitely_ say B -> C, or for A to suggest that B is _definitely_ C (although I think this is harder, as then I would try and put this in the ontology). Looks like I (ideally) need two forms of inference (maybe version 2.0….)
It important because of course it shows that I can’t depend on everyone else having the same prejudices as me….
Great and useful information comes out through this post.
Comment by hermes bags — October 9, 2012 @ 12:16 am
The Christian Louboutin shoes are amazing, pretty comfy, and sexy and the red soles…. The shoes are perfect. Besides that, the heel has the sexiest shape.
Comment by christian louboutin sale — February 4, 2013 @ 3:13 am