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

Re: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 12:42:01 -0400
To: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20080903124201.3a269f9b@kiferserv>

We need one syntax and one PS. APS should be merged/made compliant with PS,
which is easy to do.

michael

On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 12:36:51 -0400
Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> But the idea was to have all the syntax rules in one place for
> easy reference and understanding. What would be the reason to 
> have two PS's that are not very different  from each other  (or one 
> PS split across two documents?), instead of one?  It's harder to
> keep track of, and the status of one of them is not clear.
> 
> Stella
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> 
> Sent by: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
> 09/03/2008 10:28 AM
> 
> To
> "Chris Welty" <cawelty@gmail.com>, "Jos de Bruijn" <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
> cc
> "Adrian Paschke" <adrian.paschke@biotec.tu-dresden.de>, 
> <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> Subject
> RE: AW: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> Because it's BLD's PS, I moved your syntax variant from APS into BLD
> (as a temporary Appendix 11).
> 
> -- Harold 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] 
> On Behalf Of Chris Welty
> Sent: September 2, 2008 11:45 AM
> To: Jos de Bruijn
> Cc: Adrian Paschke; public-rif-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: AW: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign
> 
> 
> 
> </chair>
> I moved the full BLD PS EBNF into the APS document and made a few changes 
> that I 
> prefer for presentation, in particular I changed:
> 
> 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
> 
> TY is a mnemonic for "type", SC for "subclass"
> 
> These simple changes make the APS much more readable for me.  It still 
> needs to 
> be cleaned up some.  Probably ANGLEBRACKIRI can be dropped and replaced 
> with 
> IRI_REF.
> 
> All the references to external grammars should be included for 
> convenience, 
> again we want people to be able to e.g. print out the grammar page and use 
> it as 
> a guide for writing rules or implementing parsers.
> 
> I'm not able to figure out what IRICONST is, I think syntactically its 
> just IRI.
> <chair>
> 
> -Chris
> 
> 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
> > 
> > I believe Chris wants to change this.
> > In any case, we cannot use ::, because it is already used for
> > classification.
> > 
> > Best, Jos
> > 
> >>
> >> - Adrian
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Urspr√ľngliche 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
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>
> > 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2008 16:48:27 GMT

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