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

Re: Summary: Urgent: Issue with RIF-Core EBNF Grammar?

From: Jos de Bruijn <jos.debruijn@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 15:01:09 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTimBZZR_cwJF2qgnep4uoYGXAj2ac3x56t0zNxBO@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, Christian De Sainte Marie <csma@fr.ibm.com>, Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@googlemail.com>, RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Test case:

Document(Group( _a#_b))

Under option 1):

This is a positive syntax test for BLD
This is a negative syntax test for Core and PRD

Under option 2):

This is a positive syntax test for Core and BLD.
This is a negative syntax test for PRD.


Best, Jos

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
>> So, it seems we have two options:
>>
>> 1) rather painless, but contradicting the group's original resolution, =
>> i.e.=20
>>    accept the rewording suggested by Jos [1] to clarify 2.3.
>>
>> 2) stick to the resoultion, by either adopting c) or d) from [2] (the =
>> resolution [3] is not clear about whether=20
>>    universal facts should be allowed or not) and fix both 2.3 and the =
>> EBNF grammar.
>>
>> As I understand it, going for 1) needs at the very least a new group =
>> resolution that=20
>> overcomes the original resolution [3] (if that path is chosen, I would =
>> kindly ask to record my abstention)
>
> I'd love to see some test cases for this, perhaps on both sides.
>
>    -- Sandro
>
>> Axel
>>
>> 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2010May/0057.html
>> 2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2010May/0052.html
>> 3. http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/meeting/2009-01-15#resolution_3
>>
>> On 12 May 2010, at 12:31, Christian De Sainte Marie wrote:
>>
>> >=20
>> > The resolution about membership in Core is recorded here: =
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/meeting/2009-01-15#resolution_3=20
>> >=20
>> > It was, indeed, to allow membership in Core facts and conditions.=20
>> >=20
>> > Cheers,=20
>> >=20
>> > Christian=20
>> >=20
>> > IBM
>> > 9 rue de Verdun
>> > 94253 - Gentilly cedex - FRANCE
>> > Tel. +33 1 49 08 35 00
>> > Fax +33 1 49 08 35 10
>> >=20
>> >=20
>> >=20
>> > From:       Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@googlemail.com>
>> > To: Jos de Bruijn <jos.debruijn@gmail.com>
>> > Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, Christian De Sainte =
>> Marie/France/IBM@IBMFR, RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
>> > Date:       12/05/2010 12:09
>> > Subject:    Re: Urgent: Issue with RIF-Core EBNF Grammar?
>> >=20
>> >=20
>> >=20
>> >=20
>> > On 12/05/2010 09:36, Jos de Bruijn wrote:
>> > > Axel, Christian, all,
>> > >
>> > > I raised my concerns about the RIF-Core spec in a separate email.
>> > >
>> > > Concerning facts about class membership: they are both in BLD and =
>> PRD
>> > > (see [1]).
>> > > Concerning class membership atoms in rule conclusions: I do remember
>> > > that we explicitly forbade them in Core.
>> >=20
>> > That's my recollection too.
>> >=20
>> > Our official record of the decision [1] was to allow membership "in =
>> Core=20
>> > facts and conditions".
>> >=20
>> > We did at one point have an EBNF that reflected that resolution.
>> >=20
>> > My memory [2] was that Gary on behalf of the PRD group later pointed=20=
>>
>> > that asserting membership facts was just as problematic as concluding=20=
>>
>> > them via non ground rules. The problem being that in object-based PR=20=
>>
>> > implementations membership is hardwired in the external data model. So=20=
>>
>> > we decided to forbid any assertion of membership facts. I.e. the EBNF=20=
>>
>> > accurately reflects our intention[3].
>> >=20
>> > The phrasing in section 2.3 is clarified by "they [equality terms and=20=
>>
>> > class membership terms] are only allowed in rule premises". I agree =
>> that=20
>> > the term rule "premise" is not defined in the document so it could be=20=
>>
>> > clearer but I don't see how one could reasonably interpret a ground =
>> fact=20
>> > as a "premise". So it seems to me the normative text and informative=20=
>>
>> > EBNF are in agreement.
>> >=20
>> > Dave
>> >=20
>> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/48
>> > [2] Which I've not been able to validate from the record trail.
>> > [3] That intention may be strange and hard to understand but that's =
>> the=20
>> > nature of working group compromises :)
>> >=20
>> >=20
>> >=20
>> >=20
>> > 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 =80
>> > SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 03644
>> >=20
>>
>>
>



-- 
Jos de Bruijn
  Web:          http://www.debruijn.net/
  LinkedIn:     http://at.linkedin.com/in/josdebruijn
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 13:02:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 12 May 2010 13:02:11 GMT