play(player, game)

Krzysztof,

I'm not sure why you think the last assertion should not be possible.
At that point both JANO and CHESS are of type PLAYER (via explicit
assertion) and GAME (inferred via the type constraint on PLAY).  You
asserted GAME and PLAYER to be closed which only means (NOT (GAME/PLAYER ?x)) 
will be concluded if (GAME/PLAYER ?x) cannot be inferred.  So, there
are no contradictions I can see.

Hans

>>>>> Krzysztof Janowicz <[email protected]> writes:

> hi,
> i do not understand why the last assert is possible, can anyone give me 
> a hand? can i assert everything independent of the definitions made bevor?

> thanks!

> (DEFCONCEPT PLAYER)
> (DEFCONCEPT GAME)
> (DEFRELATION PLAY (?X ?Y)
>    :=> (AND (PLAYER ?X) (GAME ?Y)))

> // or (defrelation play ((?x player) (?y game)))

> (ASSERT (CLOSED GAME))
> (ASSERT (CLOSED PLAYER))
> (ASSERT (PLAYER JANO))
> (ASSERT (PLAYER CHESS))
> (ASSERT (PLAY JANO CHESS))
> (ASSERT (PLAY JANO JANO))


> regards
> k.janowicz
> _______________________________________________
> powerloom-forum mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/powerloom-forum