RE: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign

Let's not do such an overhaul but continue with the PS of the LC,
and instead continue with the _separate layer_ of the RIF Abridged
Presentation Syntax (APS).

RIF's PS is analogous to OWL 2.0's Functional-Style Syntax
(http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/).

RIF's APS currently mostly compactifies the PS.
Alternatively, with 'isa' etc. evolving towards Controlled English,
it could be made analogous to OWL 2.0's Manchester Syntax
(http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/ManchesterSyntax).
SBVR has already looked into a Controlled English for rules
(http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/1.0/).

Best,
Harold


-----Original Message-----
From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Michael Kifer
Sent: September 2, 2008 12:40 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
   etc.

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
overhaul).


	--michael

Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2008 16:37:26 UTC