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

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

From: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 07:49:27 -0700
Message-ID: <486A43F7.7060906@oracle.com>
To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Yes, I like that.

Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
> 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 14:51:58 GMT

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