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

Re: Core] What Externals (Was: Re: RIF Core shortened)

From: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:52:00 -0800
Message-ID: <4922F2B0.7010900@oracle.com>
To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
CC: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu, Patrick Albert <palbert@ilog.fr>, Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, Adrian Paschke <Adrian.Paschke@gmx.de>, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

I think I prefer my simple proposal: Core allows # and ## in rule 
conditions and in facts.

Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
> Gary Hallmark wrote:
>>
>> BTW, we discussed External(#) and External(##) several times but it 
>> doesn't help because
>> a. they aren't legal in BLD, thus BLD would have to change for these 
>> to be in core
>> b. we need "internal" # and ## rather than External to represent 
>> object facts.
>
> I think that this is not resolved (issue-78 [1]). And, what can be 
> external is at risk in BLD; so, we do not even need to backtrack on 
> Last Call to change our mind and allow any ATOMIC to be external.
>
> Some membership and subclass facts are, really, external, and we must 
> ask ourselves whether this need be reflected in the syntax of not.
>
> <\chair's hat>
> I believe that it may be useful to make the difference syntactic, to 
> avoid ambiguity: after all, why forbid an application to modify an 
> externally defined data model to specify an internally defined one 
> that adds subclass relations? That would require the assertion of a 
> subclass facts where both classes are part of the same externally 
> defined data model (see also my other email about asserting # and ## 
> [2]).
>
> But then, how to determine, in a condition whether a test for a 
> subclass relation is about the externally defined data model or the 
> internally modified one? Wrapping the former test in an External would 
> do the trick, I think.
>
> And, of course, Externals cannot be asserted...
>
> What do you think?
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/78
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Nov/0111.html
>
> <chair's hat>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christian
>
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 16:54:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:58 GMT