RE: F2F5 logical rule metamodel discussion

Latest discussion model...

Paul Vincent
TIBCO - ETG/Business Rules 
 
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Vincent 
Sent: 27 February 2007 14:42
To: 'RIF WG'
Subject: F2F5 logical rule metamodel discussion

Apologies for the poor quality photos. The discussion is on the
relationship between for-all, rule, ruleset, clause/implies, var,
condition and positive... currently the model does not refer to a term
"rule".

[Note to self - will bring a card reader for a real camera next time]

#5 Christian's suggested model
#6 Sandro's

Paul Vincent
TIBCO - ETG/Business Rules 
 
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Gerd Wagner
Sent: 27 February 2007 14:09
To: giurca@tu-cottbus.de; 'Dave Reynolds'
Cc: 'RIF WG'
Subject: RE: F2F5 Agenda


> Second, just considering Symbols I don't see how this resolves the 
> divergence between the metamodel reading and the abstract syntax 
> reading. Your BNF suggests that you intend this to have an 
> abstract syntax reading but I don't think we are saying that a 
> Symbol used in a predicate position (for example) would have 
> an ASort specification inline in the syntax at the point of use 
> (at least I hope not).

This hope of yours shows that RIF needs, in addition to 
the rule metamodel (which doesn't associate types/sorts
with "Uniterms"), a vocabulary metamodel, which provides 
such an association of types/sorts to functions and 
predicates/atoms. 

How can we define a RIF Core that includes function and
predicate symbols and a Sorted/Typed Logic semantics
without including the underlying vocabulary (providing 
the type/sort information)?

-Gerd