- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:09:05 -0500
- To: jos.deroo@agfa.com
- Cc: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 02:07 +0200, jos.deroo@agfa.com wrote: > Dan Connolly wrote: > [...] > >> Are functions, relations to be purely local to the XML source file? > > > > Yes... er... no... the "holds" relation and "list" function that I'm > > using are intended to be globally defined. So I guess I should have > > made URIs for those. > > I really prefer the variable predicate declaration instead of the > "holds" function as I think it is a matter of implementation wether > your inference engine uses a "holds" or for instance a Prolog =.. True, but those "implementation details" also show up in the semantics. http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/A.1_Basis%3A_Positive_Conditions I wouldn't mind hiding the holds predicate in the semantics... i.e. limit IR to just the one holds predicate and change... Atomic formulas: I(r(t1,...,tn)) = IR(r)(I(t1),...,I(tn)) to Atomic formulas: I(r(t1,...,tn)) = IR(holds)(I(r),I(t1),...,I(tn)) but I'm not sure that's as appealing overall. And I'm not sure what a Prolog =.. is. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2006 20:09:17 UTC