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

RE: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign

From: Hassan Ait-Kaci <hak@ilog.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 09:26:08 -0700
Message-ID: <9FC9C6B2EA71ED4B826F55AC7C8B9AAB01F33645@mvmbx01.ilog.biz>
To: <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, "Chris Welty" <cawelty@gmail.com>
Cc: "Jos de Bruijn" <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>, "Adrian Paschke" <adrian.paschke@biotec.tu-dresden.de>, <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
I totally concur with Michael's point.

Hassan At-Kaci  *  ILOG, Inc. - Product Division R&D

-----Original Message-----
From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org on behalf of Michael Kifer
Sent: Tue 9/2/2008 5:39 PM
To: Chris Welty
Cc: Jos de Bruijn; Adrian Paschke; public-rif-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:44:37 -0400
Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com> wrote:

> Syntax for named arguments to use '('Name  TERM)')' instead of (Name '->' TERM)
> Syntax for frames to use TERM '::' TERM instead of TERM '->' TERM
> Syntax for member to use TERM 'TY' TERM instead of TERM '#' TERM
> Syntax for subclass to us TERM 'SC' TERM instaed of TERM '##' TERM

You are proposing to replace perfectly good syntax with ugly alternatives.

CSMA's proposal for using Name = Term is bad because it misleadingly suggests
that there is only one value for Name, but in fact the value of Name is a set
and Term is just one of the values in a set.

If you want to overhaul the syntax and free up -> for (classical) implication,
then let's use something that mnemonically makes sense:

   a isa b
   c subclassOf cc or c sub cc
   name hasValue val  or name hasVal val

We should use a different sign for rule implication both in BLD and in PRD.
That should be => <= and not -> <- (provided that we agree on the overall

Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2008 16:26:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:52 UTC