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.

This is precisely what I explained:

t[] == t[?S -> ?V] or ?O[t->?V] or ?O[?S->t].

It is a useful shortcut, which comes naturally syntactically and
semantically.


	--michael  


> 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?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>