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

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

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:11:40 -0500
To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <17048.1199725900@cs.sunysb.edu>


> 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.

This does correspond to an RDF triple: (t, blank, blank)

Even if this were not the case, BLD has many things that do not correspond
to triples. This does not disqualify them.


	--michael  

> 
> 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 17:15:35 GMT

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