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

Re: [PRD] Issues to resolve before publication (ATOMIC as RULE)

From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:42:55 +0200
Message-ID: <486A183F.70902@ilog.fr>
To: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Gary Hallmark wrote:

> consider this ruleset:
> 
> _P(0)
> Forall ?x (_Q(?x) :- _P(?x))
> 
> I claim that this is a Core ruleset, valid in both PRD and BLD, and that 
> in both dialects, _Q(0) is entailed.

Absolutely. No doubt about that.

> Obviously, we want _P(0) to be a ground fact in both dialects.

 From a PRD point of view, we want _P(0) to be a ground fact in w.

In PRD, it represents the action to ASSERT _P(0): it is an ACTION, not 
an ATOMIC.

However, I agree that it makes the XML syntax in PRD and BLD different 
(since BLD does not require that a bodyless ATOMIC be enclosed in an 
<Implies> and a <then> element): what about making

RULE ::= [ Forall | Implies | ASSERT ]?

That way, PRD and BLD would be undistinguishable wrt that case.

Cheers,

Christian
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2008 11:42:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:50 GMT