W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > February 2007

Re: [TED] Core Overview Section and Validation Appendix Added

From: Adrian Giurca <giurca@tu-cottbus.de>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:05:24 +0100
Message-ID: <45D17F54.2030508@tu-cottbus.de>
To: "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Dear all,
> Great, I have edited the two diagrams / (meta-)models to
> initialize the Overview (Arch) Section:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Overview
>
>   

Looking to the RIF Core metamodel (the MOF/UML diagrams)  a number of 
questions arise:

    * The existent BNF and the actual MOF/UML metamodel are NOT
      equivalent. For example the definition of equality (Equal):  in
      the MOF model  equality orders the terms implied (by using roles
      /lhs /and /rhs/) but in the BNF (Equal      ::= TERM '=' TERM) no
      order is imposed. Lets try from the beginning to be more precise
      in such cases. I believe that BNF must align with the MOF abstract
      syntax.
    * Why we need the roles /formula/ and /declare/? How are they 
      specified in the BNF?
    * Interesting, the last document of Core  Positive Conditions 
      contains now in the BNF two productions for /Atom /and /Expr /even
      they are the same in content. This  separate de facto  atoms from
      functions.
    * I suppose in the past was a problem of multiple inheritance (/Expr
      /was inheriting from both /Atom /and /TERM/) which creates
      troubles for tools to generate XMI, but in the MOF specification
      this is NOT restricted.
    * The naming of classes/roles are not appropriate. Why /arg /and not
      /arguments/?

Thanks,
Adrian
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 09:06:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:37 GMT