W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > February 2009

Action 692: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/692

From: Changhai Ke <cke@ilog.fr>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 18:30:22 +0100
Message-ID: <3E5E1A634BBD5C4A94C4D4A6DE0852E7021A1EE0@parmbx02.ilog.biz>
To: "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
The action consists in re-factoring the BLD schema, extract the part
that can become Core schema, and have BLD and PRD schema to include Core
schemas.

 

Before working at the schema level, I have detected several differences
or inconsistencies in the BNF (Core: 18/12/2008, BLD: 22/09/2008). They
need to be confirmed or fixed before we can work on the schemas. Those
who are experts on these BNFs, can you comment and provide suggestions?

 

Changhai

 

- BNF for the rule language is the same for Core and BLD

- Core's ATOMIC does not have "subclass", while BLD's does. Define this
for Core:

ATOMIC ::= IRIMETA? (Atom | Equal | Member | Frame)

 

And proceed with a refactoring for Core's FORMULA BNF.



- UNITERM: difference to confirm

Core: UNITERM ::= Const '(' (TERM* ')'

BLD: UNITERM ::= Const '(' (TERM* | (Name '->' TERM)*) ')'

 

- Equal: difference to confirm

Core: Equal ::= TERM '=' ( TERM | 'External' '(' FUNC ')' )

BLD: Equal ::= TERM '=' TERM

 

- GENERAL_TERM defined in Core but not used. To confirm.

- Expr defined in BLD but unused, remove it?

 

- TERM: difference to be confirmed.

Core: TERM ::= IRIMETA? (Const | Var)

BLD: TERM ::= IRIMETA? (Const | Var | Expr | 'External' '(' Expr ')')

 

- Implies: difference to confirm

Core: Implies ::= IRIMETA? ATOMIC ':-' FORMULA

BLD: Implies   ::= IRIMETA? (ATOMIC | 'And' '(' ATOMIC* ')') ':-'
FORMULA

 
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 17:31:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:03 GMT