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

RE: [RIF] test case dialect indicators

From: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:05:56 -0500
To: "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF99E02A08.4249B995-ON85257507.0004F0DD-85257507.000609C7@us.ibm.com>
Ok, I have a few questions on sections 1-5.

Stella

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.3  Formulas of RIF-Core
          -  The 1st bullet says subterms of atomic formulas can be either 

               variables or constants, but the ebnf allows External Atoms 
also. 
 
             (last sentence of section 2.4 has the same discrepancy with 
ebnf)

2.5  Well-formed formulas
         -  does something about coherent external schemas need 
             to be added?

        -  2nd bullet 
                 doesn't cover document formulas, with imported
                 documents like BLD does.

                 A  test case was rejected as being syntactially 
                 incorrect  because the premise and conclusion used 
                 the same predicate symbol with different arities. 
                 Does this mean that the conclusion is considered to
                 be part of the same document as the premise?

5.1  Safeness (Definition)
           -   1st bullet
                   - what is psi (at the very end of the sentence)?
                   - is "RIF formula phi" supposed to be "RIF condition 
formula phi"? 

           -   3rd & 4th bullets
                   -  the only difference between these two bullets is the 

                      word "implication,"  - what is the distinction?
 
          -    6th bullet
                    - if phi is ground, what are the ?V's?  "Ground" is 
not
                      defined in BLD or Core.


 




"Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> 
11/11/2008 02:11 PM

To
Stella Mitchell/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
cc

Subject
RE: [RIF] test case dialect indicators






Stella,
 
I would say yes:
The resolutions on Core are implemented; only a few issues are open
(to become editors' notes in FPWD).
 
We recently noticed that several examples in the current BLD spec are
actually Core examples. So, we might generalize them for the BLD spec
and keep them for the Core spec.
 
We cannot be sure about a few BLD/Core feature adjustments that could
be needed later, but dialect labeling in UCR would be helpful at this 
time.

When the Core spec seems unclear for the purpose of such labeling,
could you draw our attention to it?
 
Harold

 
From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] 
On Behalf Of Stella Mitchell
Sent: November 11, 2008 2:50 PM
To: RIF WG
Subject: [RIF] test case dialect indicators


Is Core settled enough that it makes sense to now go through the test 
cases and indicate which are Core?  Currently all approved and proposed 
tests are marked as BLD.   

Stella 
Received on Thursday, 20 November 2008 01:06:53 GMT

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