- From: Patrick Albert <palbert@ilog.fr>
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 13:54:06 +0200
- 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>
Agree to change "->" in frames, this is ugly. I'd propose to use "." which is the regular notation for referencing slots of objects. Patrick. -----Original Message----- From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Chris Welty Sent: mardi 2 septembre 2008 16:25 To: Jos de Bruijn Cc: Adrian Paschke; public-rif-wg@w3.org Subject: Re: AW: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign 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. -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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > -- 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 Thursday, 4 September 2008 11:55:22 UTC