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

Re: [BLD] Frame without slot/value pair?

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 15:02:25 +0000
Message-ID: <47823F01.4030408@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
CC: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Michael Kifer wrote:
> Christian,
> 
> It can go either way. We chose a more uniform syntax where t() and t[] are
> allowed.

If it can go either way then I have a mild preference for not allowing 
t[] - without this case then all frame formulae correspond to a set of 
RDF triples.

Dave
-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England


> Formulas like t[] are also useful. If they are allowed, their
> semantics is that the object t exists (without testing any of its
> properties). Incidentally, I forgot to include them in the semantics.
> 
> 
> 	--michael  
> 
>> Michael, Harold,
>>
>> I just noticed a minor detail in the definition of the Frame construct. 
>> The presentation syntax says that a Frame is a TERM or CLASSIFICATION 
>> followed by zero or more slot-value pairs (* stands for 0..*, right?):
>>
>> Frame ::= (TERM | CLASSIFICATION) '[' (TERM ' -> ' (TERM | Frame))* ']'
>>
>> I suppose that this is a typo and that it should be:
>>
>> Frame ::= (TERM | CLASSIFICATION) '[' (TERM ' -> ' (TERM | Frame))+ ']'
>>
>> that is, a TERM or CLASSIFICATION followed by one or more slot-value pairs?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Christian
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 7 January 2008 15:02:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:44 GMT