- From: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:36:02 +0200
- To: "'Chris Welty'" <cawelty@frontiernet.net>, "'Public-Rif-Wg \(E-mail\)'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> We expect to plan the bulk of the next telecon discussing the technical > proposal [http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/CORE], especially the > syntax. > > To prepare, please try to use the XML syntax to encode some rules. If > you find you need something that is not in the syntax, please note it > and be prepared to discuss it. As has been raised by Dave and Dan and myself, there are many typing constructs, which belong to a RIF phase 1 Horn logic rule condition language and which are not in the syntax. So, what is the plan of the chairs with respect to these additional constructs: shall they be discussed tomorrow or shall this discussion be postponed? Does it make sense to have a formal decision on something so preliminary like the current proposal? As an example of typing in a rule condition language, consider the following property atom in IRL: cust:GoldCustomer; sCart:ShoppingCart(customer == cust); It states that the customer property of the shopping cart sCart has the value of cust, which is a varaible of type GoldCustomer. It involves two variables, cust and sCart, both of which are typed. Having a specific form, it should also be viewed as a special type of atom, namely an object-valued property atom. Rewritten in the current core condition language proposal as the untyped standard predicate logic atom customer( sCart, cust), all three type information items would get lost, so we would not be able to reconsruct this property atom when imported to, say, Jboss Rules in this reduced form. -Gerd
Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 16:36:13 UTC