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

AW: [PRD] ACTION-531 Update PRD examples complete

From: Adrian Paschke <adrian.paschke@biotec.tu-dresden.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:25:40 +0200
To: "'Gary Hallmark'" <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>, "'pu >> RIF WG'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Cc: "'Christian de Sainte Marie'" <csma@ilog.fr>
Message-Id: <20080619082530.93DA170000DA@mailserver.biotec.tu-dresden.de>


Excellent job! 

Christian, Gary,

I added a small extension to the presentation syntax in chapter 2.5.
allowing variables in the assert and retract actions

   ASSERT    ::= Atom | Frame | Var
   Retract   ::= 'Retract' '(' Atom | Frame | Var ')'

In many production rule systems it is common to use variables in the assert
/ retract actions. For instance, imagine the following production rule (in

(defrule r1
    ?f1 <- (valve ?v open)
    ?f2 <- (set ?v close)
    (retract ?f1 ?f2)
    (assert (valve ?v close))

The informal meaning of the rule is to match two facts in the intensional
knowledge base, retract both of them and insert a new fact in their place.

We already use equal for single assignment to variables such as "?f1 =
(valve ?v open)".

I would even propose to add a "*" to the EBNF, so that we can directly
describe multiple retracts / asserts such as "(retract ?f1 ?f2)", instead of
splitting them into two retracts, retract(?f1) retract(?f2).


BTW: ":-" is part of a widely known and used ISO rules standard. Just to
support my argument to use ":-" to describe (business) rules in a dialect
independent presentation syntax. 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] Im
Auftrag von Gary Hallmark
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Juni 2008 01:36
An: pu >> RIF WG
Betreff: [PRD] ACTION-531 Update PRD examples complete

I first found it necessary to edit 2.5 Presentation Syntax to succinctly 
specify the EBNF for PRD PS.  I took a bit of
initiative and removed some of what I took to be arbitrary differences.  
E.g. I don't really like named argument UNITERMs, but I can see 
absolutely no reason why BLD should have them and PRD should not.

I had to reconcile 6.1 and 2.5.  I left Christian's extended Forall in 
6.1 but not in 2.5.

I then changed all the chicken examples (1.3,, 3.1) to use the 
PS defined in 2.5.

I think there are some minor inconsistencies between 2.5, 6.1, and 2.* 
where the XML syntax is explained.  I don't think I made it worse, 
though :-)
Received on Thursday, 19 June 2008 08:26:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:51 UTC