W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-comments@w3.org > May 2008

Re: local arity, term WFF-ness conflicts with merging requirement?

From: Adrian Paschke <adrian.paschke@biotec.tu-dresden.de>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 12:22:47 +0200
To: <public-rif-comments@w3.org>
Cc: <connolly@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20080531102236.7988A70000D7@mailserver.biotec.tu-dresden.de>
Hello Dan
In BLD, pred and funcs have one arity, and it is correct that the
restriction holds even across multiple documents. So the requirement is met
-- rulesets can be merged -- but if one ruleset is in error, then the merged
version will be able to detect the error.
- Adrian
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org
an%253E> > 

Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 14:35:07 -0500

To: public-rif-comments@w3.org

Message-Id: <1210016107.4651.363.camel@pav.lan>
I noted these two bits of the RIF syntax:
"Each predicate and function symbol has precisely one arity"
"A well-formed term is one that occurs in a well-formed set of fomulas."
  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-bld/
Those seem to be not web-wide definitions, but definitions
that just apply to one file or something. Otherwise,
to take an arbitrary example, the function symbol ABC:
what is its arity?
The context-sensitivity of those definitions seems
to conflict with the requirement to be able to
merge rule sets:
"4.2.12 Merge Rule Sets 
RIF should support the ability to merge rule sets. "
If ABC has arity 2 in one rule set and arity 3 in
another, what happens when those rule sets are merged?
Is it worthwhile making the requirement more precise as follows?
  any collection of well-formed RIF formulas is itself well-formed
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Saturday, 31 May 2008 10:23:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:49:19 UTC