W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > August 2008

Re: [RIF Test Cases] Abridged Presentation syntax

From: Hassan At-Kaci <hak@ilog.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:59:56 -0700
Message-ID: <48AF28CC.1060305@ilog.com>
To: Adrian Paschke <adrian.paschke@biotec.tu-dresden.de>
CC: "'Jos de Bruijn'" <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>, "'Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Hi Adrian,

I appreciate the motivation you invoke for introducing an Abridged
Presentation Syntax (APS). This makes an APS expression an abbreviation
of a PS expression, itself an abbreviation for the normative XML syntax.
In DTB, Axel Polleres already defined abbreviations (although formally:
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DTB#Shortcuts_for_Constants_in_RIF.27s_Presentation_Syntax)
and he used them for the examples of the DTB document. My question is,
are the abridged forms for DTB consistent with those your introduce
in http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/UCR#Use_Cases? If not, can it be
made so? If so, could the two be specified formally along the rest of
the EBNF rules for BLD Rules and BLD Conditions? Currently Axel's rules
are hyperlinked to where they are defined in other W3C documents all
over the place as an extension of the original BLD EBNF. It would be
good to put together somewhere the complete set of lexical and syntactic
EBNF rules for the real PS as it is actually used in *all* RIF documents
(whether UCR, Core, BLD, DTB, PRD, ...). That would surely help *me* in
my task to provide a correct working APS parser to automate generating
the serialized XML for of all the examples in these documents 
(http://www.w3.org/2008/08/19-rif-minutes.html#action08).

At any rate, I will be on vacation from tonight through August 31 and I
will resume work on this after I am back.

-hak

Adrian Paschke wrote:
> Hi Jos,
> 
> You asked: 
> 
>> In
>> addition, it is unclear to me which syntax they use. it is certainly not
>> valid presentation syntax.
> 
> It is the abridged presentation syntax from UCR
> (http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/UCR#Use_Cases) which was introduced there
> to have a very compact and easy readable human-oriented format.
> 
> It might be also usable for the test cases to get a quick picture what the
> rules of the test case are. The full presentation syntax can become very
> complex, take e.g. the simple example of "?X>= (?Y+2) " which would be very
> long-winded in the full presentation syntax and hard to read for a human.
> 
> But you are right; we need full presentation syntax to automatically
> translate them into the concrete XML syntax. 
> 
> Hence, I would propose to describe the test cases in full presentation
> syntax in the premises and conclusion field (or alternatively already in
> concrete XML syntax) and optionally represent them in abridged presentation
> syntax together with the narrative description of the test case in the
> "Description" field. 
> An alternative would be to have several (optional) premise / conclusion
> fields which represent the test case in different syntaxes (abridge, full,
> XML, PRD, BLD, ...).
> 
> - Adrian
> 
> 
> -----Ursprngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] Im
> Auftrag von Jos de Bruijn
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. August 2008 15:46
> An: Chris Welty
> Cc: Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)
> Betreff: Re: Call for test cases
> 
> 
> 
>> Below are instructions to create new test cases on the WIKI. The test
>> cases will be automatically classified into the category of the used
>> template and the specified dialect. We probably might need more
>> templates (categories) later,  as described here
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Test#Categories_of_RIF_Test_Cases
>>
>> But let's start simple first and collect positive entailment tests which
>> demonstrate BLD and DTB.
>>
>> The properties of the templates for test cases are described here
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Test_Case_Format
> 
> The page lacks descriptions of the properties Text and Format and
> guidelines about how to format the title.
> Then, it is not very clear to me what the difference is between the
> properties Purpose and Description.
> 
>> Some example test cases for BLD (positive entailment test cases) can be
>> found here
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Test_Case_Ordered_Relations
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Test_Case_Unordered_Relations
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Test_Case_Frames
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Test_Case_Equality
> 
> All the examples like the required properties title and purpose.  In
> addition, it is unclear to me which syntax they use. it is certainly not
> valid presentation syntax.
> 
> 
> I tried to write a test case (a negative entailment test), but I was not
> sure whether it is in the correct format.  Please check:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Test_Case_Local_Constant
> 
> 
> Best, Jos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Hassan At-Kaci  *  ILOG, Inc. - Product Division R&D
http://koala.ilog.fr/wiki/bin/view/Main/HassanAitKaci
Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 21:20:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:53 GMT