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

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

From: Adrian Paschke <adrian.paschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 16:29:22 +0200
To: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>, "'Axel Polleres'" <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Cc: "'Christian De Sainte Marie'" <csma@fr.ibm.com>, "'Dave Reynolds'" <dave.e.reynolds@googlemail.com>, "'Jos de Bruijn'" <jos.debruijn@gmail.com>, "'RIF'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <029401caf1df$844c3bb0$8ce4b310$@paschke@gmx.de>
If we allow class membership facts in Core this BLD test case is also a Core
test case:

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Class_Membership

-Adrian

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] Im
Auftrag von Sandro Hawke
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. Mai 2010 14:10
An: Axel Polleres
Cc: Christian De Sainte Marie; Dave Reynolds; Jos de Bruijn; RIF
Betreff: Re: Summary: Urgent: Issue with RIF-Core EBNF Grammar?

> 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
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 14:30:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 12 May 2010 14:30:02 GMT