- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:46:50 +0200
- To: Hassan Ait-Kaci <hak@ilog.com>
- CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Hassan Ait-Kaci wrote: > > The question seems to be, really, if we can expect that the author > > of a BLD compatible rule set (program) always knows (at authoring > > time) whether a given frame's slot is, essentially, multi- or > single-valued. > > To me, that author had better know what s/he wrote! So, *of course*, the > *author* of the rules knows what s/he wrote. How many programmers do you > know that write programs not knowing what the semantics of what they write? > My point is that one can always declare this intended semantics, and the > setup thet I propose takes care of that seemlessly (modulo the amendment > of the collection semantics from sets to monoids). So that the solution would be to differentiate, in the syntax of Frames, between the multivalued case (o[p->v], where o[p->v1 is not contradictory with o[p->v2]) and the single-valued case (e.g. o[p=v], where you cannot have both o[p=v1] and o[p=v2], unless v1=v2), and allow only the single-valued case in PRD (and have some kind of transform from -> to =, as you describe, for the BLD2PRD interchange)? Christian
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2008 14:47:36 UTC