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

Re: AW: [PRD] Assert and AssertRetract test cases (ACTION-845)

From: Christian De Sainte Marie <csma@fr.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:06:14 +0200
To: "Adrian Paschke" <adrian.paschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "'RIF'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF96BC0A74.F883EB15-ONC12575FA.004CDA4E-C12575FA.004D79C6@fr.ibm.com>
"Adrian Paschke" <adrian.paschke@gmx.de> wrote on 21/07/2009 15:48:27:
> 
> That was exactly the intention, to demonstrate that you can simulate
> modify by a assert+retract combination.

Then, the test case should be modified. The equivalent to:

Forall ?X (
  If ?X[ex:status -> "normal" ex:discount -> "10"]
  Then Do ( Modify(?X[ex:discount -> "0"]) 

would be (modulo the atomicity):

Forall ?X (
  If ?X[ex:status -> "normal" ex:discount -> "10"]
  Then Do ( Retract (?X[ex:discount -> "10"])
                  Assert (?X[ex:discount -> "0"]) 

But the questionraised by the original version of your test case remains: 
do we allow a frame about an object to be asserted after that object has 
been retracted?

Cheers,

Christian

ILOG, an IBM Company
9 rue de Verdun
94253 - Gentilly cedex - FRANCE
Tel. +33 1 49 08 35 00
Fax +33 1 49 08 35 10


Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus:/ Unless stated otherwise above:
Compagnie IBM France
Siège Social : Tour Descartes, 2, avenue Gambetta, La Défense 5, 92400 
Courbevoie
RCS Nanterre 552 118 465
Forme Sociale : S.A.S.
Capital Social : 609.751.783,30 ?
SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 02430
Received on Tuesday, 21 July 2009 14:07:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 21 July 2009 14:07:44 GMT