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

Michael Kifer wrote:
> I did not understand *anything* of what you wrote. :-()

Let's try something else, then...

> The construct t[] has natural semantics, which in terms of RDF would be
> 
> (t, blank, blank) \/ (blank, t, blank) \/ (blank, blank,t)
> 
> In terms of the frame syntax, t[] can be checked by the query
> 
> t[?S -> ?V] or ?O[t->?V] or ?O[?S->t].

The discussion started because the current syntax allows a frame to be a 
TERM followed by zero slot-value pair and I wondered if it was intended 
or a typo.

All three frames in your email have a slot-value pair following the TERM 
that denotes the object.

If you remove the slot-value pair, you have the choice between two 
formulae: t[] ot ?O[], and my question was about when and for what 
purpose they would be used.

Christian

Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
> 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?