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

[RIF] test case conclusions

From: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:34:37 -0400
To: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFF2B38CD1.DB4A480C-ON852574EA.007CAE9D-852574EA.00818336@us.ibm.com>
In the existing set of tests, a few of  the conclusions need** to be
condition formulas  (eg [1]),  none of them need to be document 
formulas, and by far most of them can be either. Do we want to have
a style convention that says they should be conditions if they can,
and documents only if they need to be (or the reverse)?  Or just leave
it to the preference  of the submitter?

Stella
 
[1] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Disjunctive_Information_from_Negative_Guards_1

**although, couldn't those that entail non-atomic conditions also be
    be represented as:
        premises:
                 ....
                 ...
 
              test:passed()  :-  Or (... )

     conclusion:
            Document (
               Group (
                    test:passed() 
               )
            )

   (it's not as readable for a human, I think)
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2008 23:35:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:57 GMT