W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-comments@w3.org > May 2008

local arity, term WFF-ness conflicts with merging requirement?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 14:35:07 -0500
To: public-rif-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1210016107.4651.363.camel@pav.lan>

I noted these two bits of the RIF syntax:

"Each predicate and function symbol has precisely one arity"

"A well-formed term is one that occurs in a well-formed set of fomulas."

  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-bld/

Those seem to be not web-wide definitions, but definitions
that just apply to one file or something. Otherwise,
to take an arbitrary example, the function symbol ABC:
what is its arity?

The context-sensitivity of those definitions seems
to conflict with the requirement to be able to
merge rule sets:

"4.2.12 Merge Rule Sets 
RIF should support the ability to merge rule sets. "

If ABC has arity 2 in one rule set and arity 3 in
another, what happens when those rule sets are merged?

Is it worthwhile making the requirement more precise as follows?

  any collection of well-formed RIF formulas is itself well-formed

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 5 May 2008 19:35:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:06:57 UTC