- 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>
> 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 UTC