- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:35:36 +0200
- 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 UTC