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

Re: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign

From: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:41:58 -0400
Message-ID: <48BECC66.70205@gmail.com>
To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
CC: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>, "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, public-rif-wg@w3.org


Agreed, but lets keep in in the APS page while we are working on it and merging it.

-Chris

Michael Kifer wrote:
> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
> 
> 

-- 
Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
+1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
cawelty@gmail.com                           Hawthorne, NY 10532
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2008 17:42:39 GMT

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