Re: [TED] ACTION-306: suggestions for abstract syntax

All,

after the useful discussion yesterday (well, useful at least for me), I 
stand by my proposed modification of the abstract syntax for Core rules.

I can see the benefits of it. Not even mentionning extensibility and 
future usages:
- it is simpler (does not need the CLAUSE class);
- it allows everything that the current model allows and more (with the 
current abstract syntax, a ground fact must still be wrapped within a 
Forall);
- it does not break what already exists (I did the modifications in the 
text that the modification of the model requires, see [1] for the result 
and [2] for the diff with the current "Horn_Rule" page).

On the other hand, I do not see any inconvenient.

I am less confident wrt the other part of my proposal, summarized in the 
Quantificaton2 diagram in my previous email on the subject [3]. I will 
discuss the questions I have on that subject after yesterday's 
discussion in another email.

Cheers,

Christian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Horn_Rules_Alternative

[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Horn_Rules

[3] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jun/att-0026/Quantification2.png

Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2007 15:57:49 UTC