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

Re: AW: [RIF Test Cases] Abridged Presentation syntax

From: Leora Morgenstern <leora@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:29:27 -0400
To: "Adrian Paschke" <adrian.paschke@biotec.tu-dresden.de>
Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org, Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <OF331393E3.5D6CBEBB-ON852574B0.00702351-852574B0.00708F96@us.ibm.com>
I agree that having a syntax that looks familiar and is close to common 
practice will help increase adoption of RIF. 

Is it possible to have a preprocessor that translates some form of 
Abridged Presentation Syntax to Full Presentation Syntax? This would allow 
users to work in a more familiar and easier-to-learn syntax. 




"Adrian Paschke" <adrian.paschke@biotec.tu-dresden.de> 
08/25/2008 08:50 AM

To
Leora Morgenstern/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, Stella Mitchell/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc
<public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Subject
AW: [RIF Test Cases] Abridged Presentation syntax






True, no problem to fix the examples and use explicit Forall, And etc.
 
But, one more argument is:
 
As Leora already pointed out these conventions and short cuts are 
frequently used in logic / logic programming. There is a long history here 
which we can and should not neglect. Language standards, e.g. ISO Prolog 
syntax, as well as many tools for engineering, editing, translating etc. 
exist. If our abridged presentation syntax is close to what is common 
practice we will support reusability of existing tools, will make it easy 
to learn and understand RIF, and will increase adoption of it.
 
Just my two cents,
 
Adrian
 

Von: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] Im 
Auftrag von Leora Morgenstern
Gesendet: Montag, 25. August 2008 14:30
An: Stella Mitchell
Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Betreff: Re: [RIF Test Cases] Abridged Presentation syntax
 

You're right, Stella! I had missed that. Thanks for pointing it out. 

In any case, those are easy to fix, and less of an issue than the 
abbreviations listed in the table. 

Leora 



Stella Mitchell/Watson/IBM 
08/25/2008 08:24 AM 


To
Leora Morgenstern/Watson/IBM 
cc
public-rif-wg@w3.org 
Subject
Re: [RIF Test Cases] Abridged Presentation syntaxLink
 


 
 



They're listed as part of the abridged presentation syntax, immediately 
below the table. 

Stella 



Leora Morgenstern/Watson/IBM 
08/25/2008 08:16 AM 


To
Stella Mitchell/Watson/IBM@IBMUS 
cc
"Adrian Paschke" <Adrian.Paschke@gmx.de>, "Hassan At-Kaci" 
<hak@ilog.com>, public-rif-wg@w3.org 
Subject
Re: [RIF Test Cases] Abridged Presentation syntaxLink
 


 
 



Stella, 
  
>The syntax left in UCR that is not official PS syntax is: 
 > - shortcuts for external functions & predicates 
 > - can leave out "And" and conjuction is assumed 
 >- can leave out Forall for rules with variables and assume variables are 
quantified 
 > - denoting the end of a rule with a period 

The last three are actually  not even part of the Abridged Presentation 
Syntax, and do not figure in Adrian's table mapping Abridged Presentation 
Syntax to Presentation Syntax. They are just conventions that are 
frequently used in logical formalizations/ logic programming, and have 
crept into some of the examples. It is easy to fix the examples so that 
these aren't used, and I agree that we should do so. 

Regarding the first: I agree also that it would be best to have one 
unified convention for shortcuts. While we are revisiting the BLD syntax, 
as Adrian suggested, in order to formalize various open issues. it would 
be worthwhile discussing whether we should integrate some of the shortcuts 
of the Abbreviated Presentation Syntax into the shortcuts already defined 
in the BLD document. 

Leora 


Stella Mitchell/Watson/IBM@IBMUS 
Sent by: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org 
08/23/2008 07:20 AM 


To
"Adrian Paschke" <Adrian.Paschke@gmx.de> 
cc
"Hassan At-Kaci" <hak@ilog.com>, public-rif-wg@w3.org, 
public-rif-wg-request@w3.org 
Subject
Re: [RIF Test Cases] Abridged Presentation syntax
 


 
 





Adrian, 

As I mentioned several times during our internal discussions, it would be 
good to reconcile with the shortcuts defined for BLD PS. 

In your UCR abridged presentation syntax table [2], rows 
1, 2, 3, 5,  6  and 7 are redundant with the shortcuts in DTB [1]. 

Row 4 is about text with a language tag. Axel currently has a proposal for 

a shortcut for this in [3]. 

The syntax left in UCR that is not official PS syntax is: 
  - shortcuts for external functions & predicates 
  - can leave out "And" and conjuction is assumed 
  - can leave out Forall for rules with variables and assume variables are 
quantified 
  - denoting the end of a rule with a period 
   
For the (BLD) test cases, I think we should stay with normative BLD 
syntax, 
and only use shortcuts that the group agrees to add to that syntax. 

Stella 


[1] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DTB#Shortcuts_for_Constants_in_RIF.27s_Presentation_Syntax 


[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/UCR#Use_Cases 

[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Aug/0074.html 




"Adrian Paschke" <Adrian.Paschke@gmx.de> 
Sent by: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org 
08/23/2008 05:24 AM 
 


To
"Hassan At-Kaci" <hak@ilog.com> 
cc
public-rif-wg@w3.org 
Subject
Re: [RIF Test Cases] Abridged Presentation syntax
 


 
 






H Hassan,

> 
> 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? 

Thanks for the hint - didn't know about the new abridged syntax in DTB. At 
the time when we specified the abridged presentation syntax (actually it 
was you and Harold who started it) for UCR, there was nothing in DTB. 

Will check if both are consistent or something is missing in DTB. 
Moreover, I will then simply link to DTB for the syntax of examples in 
UCR.


>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, ...). 

Yes, agree. I think it is now time to review again the full and abriged 
presentation syntax, complete it, and solve open issues. For instance, I 
remember the ":-" or "=>" question for rules presentation. 

We need final versions to update the examples in UCR, PRD, Core, ... and 
Test Cases.

>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.

Enjoy your vacations.

-Adrian


> 
> 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
> 

-- 
Ist Ihr Browser Vista-kompatibel? Jetzt die neuesten 
Browser-Versionen downloaden: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/browser
Received on Monday, 25 August 2008 22:03:32 GMT

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