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

RE: [Core] PROPOSED Core resolutions from telecon Monday, September 22

From: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:20:07 -0700
Message-ID: <637B7E7B51291C48838F5AE1F2ACA1D758F1B4@NA-PA-VBE02.na.tibco.com>
To: "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Just a minor "clarification" for the record:

> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/48
>
> <DaveReynolds> PROPOSED: RIF Core will include member (#) but
> syntactically restricted its use in rule bodies. Note that in RIF-RDF
the
> equivalent property rdf:type would still be permitted in rule heads.
>
> <GaryHallmark> rationale: PRD rules almost always start with "if p is
a 
> person and p.age > 16 and ... then ...

Most PRD rules refer to external object (e.g. Java, XML) models. A basic
rule structure like:
- rulevariable declaration: person p
- rule condition: p.age > 16
- rule action: ...

The rulevariable declaration "person p" (TIBCO: declaration; Blaze:
pattern; Ilog: variable)) does NOT normally mean the conditional test
(ie Boolean expression) "if p is a (member of) person". It simply means
"define p as some person". This is subtly different from a member test,
although I guess could be viewed as equivalent by some.

Further explanation:
Note that more typical membership tests would be membership of sets
like:
- rulevariable declaration: person p, knownFraudsters kf
- rule condition: p is a member of kf.setOfFraudsters
- rule action: ...

Note also that some PR engines do allow you to do some subclass
ownership conditions, although I would have to say this is relatively
rare. 
- customer, nonCustomer are subclasses of person
- rulevariable declaration: person p
- rule condition: p is a customer
- rule action: ...
...which may not seem very interesting, but can be useful if I am
selecting a subobject of a rulevariable:
- customer, nonCustomer are subclasses of person
- rulevariable declaration: person p
- rule condition: p is a customer and p.spouse is a nonCustomer
- rule action: ...


Paul Vincent
TIBCO | Business Optimization | Business Rules & CEP
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Boley, Harold
> Sent: 23 September 2008 18:08
> To: RIF WG
> Subject: [Core] PROPOSED Core resolutions from telecon Monday,
September
> 22
> 
> 
> The final PROPOSEDs from the Core Notes
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Sep/0140.html
> are extracted here [and extended by the remaining open Core issue].
> 
> -- Harold
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/48
> 
> <DaveReynolds> PROPOSED: RIF Core will include member (#) but
> syntactically restricted its use in rule bodies. Note that in RIF-RDF
> the equivalent property rdf:type would still be permitted in rule
heads.
> 
> <GaryHallmark> rationale: PRD rules almost always start with "if p is
a
> person and p.age > 16 and ... then ...
> 
> 
> 
> <Harold> > > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/70
> 
> <Harold> PROPOSED: Parameterize the conformance clauses of Core with
> safeness requirements "strict" and "none" (default: "none").
> 
> <Harold> (modulo nice word for "none")
> 
> 
> 
> <Harold> > > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/71
> 
> <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Core should keep unrestricted equality and
> external function and predicate calls in rule bodies and keep external
> functions calls in rule heads.
> 
> 
> 
> [ISSUE-72  OPEN, see below]
> 
> 
> 
> <Harold> > > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/74
> 
> <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Core should keep both frames/objects and
> (positional-argument) predicates/relations.
> 
> 
> 
> <Harold> > > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/75
> 
> <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Core should keep disjunction in rule bodies,
> only if this is permitted by the solution to issue-70.
> 
> 
> 
> <Harold> > > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/76
> 
> <Harold> > > PROPOSED: Core should keep unrestricted equality in rule
> bodies (cf.
> 
> <Harold> > > ISSUE-71).
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Reynolds [mailto:der@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: September 19, 2008 11:32 AM
> To: Boley, Harold
> Cc: Axel Polleres; Gary Hallmark; Adrian Paschke; kifer@cs.sunysb.edu;
> team-rif-chairs@w3.org
> Subject: Re: RIF-Core: proposing resolutions to current issues
> 
> . . .
> 
> > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/72
> > PROPOSED: Do not include Skolem functions or a 'New' builtin for
Core
> > (a 'New' construct can be developed for PRD).
> 
> I would prefer to include the "new" builtin and have that available in
> both BLD and PRD.
> 
> My primary motivation is that a substantial number of "in the wild"
RDF
> rule sets do something like this to construct new bNodes. For the
> observed usages then the proposed "new" builtin would be sufficient
and
> would be implementable in both a BLD and PRD setting.
> 
> However, PRD seems to be opting for the "new" action, rather than the
> builtin/skolem function, and that seems to have a Gensym semantics.
> That's clearly a problem. I assume PRD doesn't want two different
forms
> of "new" and the true Gensym form can't be in Core.  I'd like to at
> least understand the PRD position here before agreeing to this
proposal.
> 
> . . .
Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2008 21:21:14 GMT

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