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

RE: CORE Review

From: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:12:12 +0100
To: "'Philippe Bonnard'" <pbonnard@ilog.fr>, <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002301c74f81$578fb600$2b9aa00a@informatik.tucottbus.de>
 



-          use longer abbreviations ( for example CONST or CONSTANT instead
of CON for example), 
 
This is a recurring criticism in the reviews, that many of the chosen
abbreviations are unnecessarily short and confusing. Nothing has been done
yet about this. Why not?
 
The following explanation

- Con (constant individual, function, or relation)

is also quite confusing. Of course, it should be "individual constant" and
not "constant individual", but this traditional term doesn't seem very
appropriate for RIF. Something like "individual name" or "object name" would
be more clear. Also, when RIF is allowing names to denote things of
different (onto)logical categories such as individuals, functions or
relations, why not using the Common Logic terminology (where this is called
"logical name", if I remember correctly).

 

The section about the free variables speaks about bodies and head of a rule.
Unfortunately, "rule bodies" means in the production rule world the
statement|action part of the rule. Even if the bodies|head terms are natural
in a logic rule context, the exercise of reversing the meaning is possible
although confusing. It does not simplify the understanding for production
rule system programmers.  

 

This shows that the LP-specific terminology should be given up in favor of a
more neutral terminology (such as condition-conclusion or
antecedent-consequent).

 

-Gerd

 
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 15:12:46 GMT

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