- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:55:16 -0500
- To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Cc: "Boley, Harold" <harold.boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Christian, It can go either way. We chose a more uniform syntax where t() and t[] are allowed. Formulas like t[] are also useful. If they are allowed, their semantics is that the object t exists (without testing any of its properties). Incidentally, I forgot to include them in the semantics. --michael > Michael, Harold, > > I just noticed a minor detail in the definition of the Frame construct. > The presentation syntax says that a Frame is a TERM or CLASSIFICATION > followed by zero or more slot-value pairs (* stands for 0..*, right?): > > Frame ::= (TERM | CLASSIFICATION) '[' (TERM ' -> ' (TERM | Frame))* ']' > > I suppose that this is a typo and that it should be: > > Frame ::= (TERM | CLASSIFICATION) '[' (TERM ' -> ' (TERM | Frame))+ ']' > > that is, a TERM or CLASSIFICATION followed by one or more slot-value pairs? > > Cheers, > > Christian > > >
Received on Friday, 28 December 2007 18:55:37 UTC