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

Re: AW: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:29:16 +0200
Message-ID: <48BD4DBC.4020304@inf.unibz.it>
To: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
CC: Adrian Paschke <adrian.paschke@biotec.tu-dresden.de>, public-rif-wg@w3.org


Chris Welty wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Jos de Bruijn wrote:
>>
>> Adrian Paschke wrote:
>>> Chris,
>>>
>>>
>>> :: will not work since it can not be inverted, i.e. you can not
>>> distinguish
>>> "body :: head" or "head :: body".
>>> <== and <-- might be inverted ==> -->
>>>
>>> -> is already used for frames
> 
> My proposal is to *change* -> to be used for implication and not frames,
> and instead use :: for frames.  Then add <- => and <=.  The extra - and
> = is ridiculous.
> 
>>
>> I believe Chris wants to change this.
>> In any case, we cannot use ::, because it is already used for
>> classification.
> 
> ## is used for classification.

Oops, I was confusing languages.
:: for frames sounds good.


Best, Jos

> 
> -Chris
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Best, Jos
>>
>>>
>>> - Adrian
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
>>> [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] Im
>>> Auftrag von Chris Welty
>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. September 2008 14:32
>>> An: Adrian Paschke
>>> Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
>>> Betreff: Re: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I suggest using these two-character symbols for implication: -> <- => <=
>>> then replace all -> with :: (or any other sequence of characters
>>> would be
>>> better).
>>>
>>> -Chris
>>>
>>> Adrian Paschke wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> With respect to the abridged presentation syntax there is still an open
>>>> issue about the sign to distinguish the head and the body of a rule.
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> Currently, we use ":-" in the examples e.g. in UCR and PRD, which is
>>>> well-known in the logic community but not so much in others including
>>>> production rules.
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> I shortly discussed this issue with the BLD/FLD editors Michael and
>>>> Harold
>>>> and we came up with this unambiguous proposal to distinguish classical
>>>> implication and rules head and body.
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> <== for PRD and BLD
>>>>
>>>> <-- for classical
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> <== and <-- might be also inverted ==> -->
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>
>>
> 

-- 
Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of
his own mistakes deserves to be called a
scholar.
  - Donald Foster



Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2008 14:28:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:54 GMT