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

Re: [RIF] test case dialect indicators

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:33:28 -0500
To: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20081119203328.479b33ea@kiferserv>



On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:05:56 -0500
Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> 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)

Yes, this is still under discussion (whether external functions will be allowed
and where precisely)

> 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?

Fixed.

michael

> 
> 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 01:34:18 GMT

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