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

Re: [PRD] Assert and separating syntax and semantics cleanly (Was: Re: [PRD] PRD Review By Example)

From: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:21:28 -0700
Message-ID: <49022038.7090609@oracle.com>
To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
CC: rif WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

I'm having a bit of trouble following what you propose to change.  Can 
you summarize using ebnf?

Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
> All,
> Gary Hallmark wrote:
>> Surely you agree we must handle the initial fact p:A(0)
>> [...]
>> We need to align with the Core syntax.  I think you are right, they 
>> can be handled in the semantics as rules that are always true.
>> [...]
>> Actually, I think it boils down to defining the syntax for the 
>> initial facts.  As usual, I prefer maximum overlap with BLD/Core.
> I believe that we agree on how the assertion of p:A(0) should be 
> handled, but I wonder if there might not be some confusion between the 
> semantics and the (concrete) syntax, especially considering the 
> modifications Gary made in the definitions of an atomic action (sect. 
> 3.1.1) and an action block (sect. 3.1.3).
> In PR languages, and, accordingly, in the semantics of PRD, an 
> assertion is an action, no doubt about that; and, followingly, a 
> sequence of assertions is, in PRD-ese, an action_block.
> Gary is right and the initial definition of the Assert action, in 
> sect. 3.1.1, was confusing, since the asserted fact is not an atomic 
> action: it is a fact.
> But I think that the correction that Gary proposes is confusing as 
> well, because, even if we choose to use the syntax of the asserted 
> fact itself to denote the assertion, the assertion is still, in the 
> semantics of PRD, an atomic action; and a sequence of assertion is 
> still an action block in the semantics of PRD, even if we choose to 
> use to represent it with the same syntax as for the conjunction of the 
> asserted facts.
> And so they should be defined, at the abstract syntax level.
> What I propose is:
> 1. to keep the same abstract syntax as before Gary's modification, 
> that is, to have any single assertion, retraction etc be defined as 
> atomic actions (or whatever other name that the group may prefer), and 
> have any sequence of actions be defined as an action block, so that 
> the semantics of atomic actions, and of action blocks, resp., can be 
> specified uniformally;
> And:
> 2. to add wording to the effect that, based on the design principle 
> that "same semantics <=> same syntax", the syntax for the assertion of 
> a single fact and the syntax for an action block that contains only 
> assertions will be the same as in Core and BLD, that is, respectively, 
> that of the single fact itself and that of a conjunction of the 
> asserted facts.
> NB: I did not include the new "Bind" action in this discussion, 
> because I am not sure that I understand its semantic status yet. I 
> have to sleep on Gary's proposal first, and allow it to percolate in 
> my brain :-)
> Cheers,
> Christian
Received on Friday, 24 October 2008 19:23:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:53 UTC