W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > May 2010

Re: [PRD] class membership assertions

From: Christian De Sainte Marie <csma@fr.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 13:17:48 +0200
To: Jos de Bruijn <jos.debruijn@gmail.com>
Cc: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF21F5787D.D4EE5B13-ONC1257721.003D32E5-C1257721.003E0EFA@fr.ibm.com>
Hi Jos,

Jos wrote on 12/05/2010 11:01:05:
> 
> I found a strange discrepancy in PRD. In the definition of assert 
> fact actions [1], it is possible to assert class membership facts.
> Now, I understand that there is a shortcut syntax for asserts in the
> XML [2] and presentation [3] syntaxes. In particular, it's not 
> necessary to write the "Assert" for positional and frame atoms. 
> However, if one wants to assert a class membership formula, one is 
> required to write the "Assert".
> Why is there this discrepancy? Was that an oversight?

The reason is that the "Assert-free" syntax is the recommended syntax for 
PRD rules that are also Core.

But the assertion of a class membership is allowed, in PRD, only for newly 
created instances, that is, inside a Do, and after an action variable has 
been bound using the New construct [1]: in other words, a PRD rule that 
asserts a class membership cannot be Core, and the "Assert-free" syntax 
would not make sense in that case (even for positional atoms and frames, 
the "Assert-free" syntax is not allowed inside a Do).

[1]http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-prd/#def-wf-action-block

Cheers,

Christian

IBM
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
Siege Social : 17 avenue de l'Europe, 92275 Bois-Colombes Cedex
RCS Nanterre 552 118 465
Forme Sociale : S.A.S.
Capital Social : 611.451.766,20 ?
SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 03644
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 11:18:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 12 May 2010 11:18:27 GMT