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

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

From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:35:36 +0200
Message-ID: <4672B1C8.2010405@ilog.fr>
To: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:

> Gary Hallmark wrote:
> 
>> I don't like the ability to have free variables (not scoped in a forall)
> 
> This is specifically excluded in the definition I propose.

Actually, I got carried away with the argument, when I proposed the 
"footnote" to require that all variables MUST be within the scope of a 
forall.

What had been discussed, and on which there was a consensus, is that 
quantifiers must be explicit in RIF; that is, that "concrete" rule 
languages that allow implicit ones would have to make them explicit in 
RIF. There was consensus on that [1] at the telecon 17Oct06 [3] and 
Harold announced that he had modified the draft accordingly at the 
telecon 24Oct06 [4].

So, I corrected my proposal to reflect that consensus and nothing more 
[5] ([6]is the diff with previous version).

Cheers,

Christian

[1] Without a formal resolution, though. The only resolution I found on 
the Horn Rule abstract syntax is from F2F5, to "use diagram in [2] in 
Core WD1, labeled "stillo under discussion".

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Feb/0134

[3] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Oct/att-0098/2006-10-17-rif-minutes.html#item04

[4] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Oct/att-0104/meeting-2006-10-24.html#item04

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

[6] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Horn_Rules_Alternative?action=diff&rev2=12&rev1=7
Received on Friday, 15 June 2007 15:35:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:39 GMT