- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:57:29 +0200
- To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- CC: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
All, after the useful discussion yesterday (well, useful at least for me), I stand by my proposed modification of the abstract syntax for Core rules. I can see the benefits of it. Not even mentionning extensibility and future usages: - it is simpler (does not need the CLAUSE class); - it allows everything that the current model allows and more (with the current abstract syntax, a ground fact must still be wrapped within a Forall); - it does not break what already exists (I did the modifications in the text that the modification of the model requires, see [1] for the result and [2] for the diff with the current "Horn_Rule" page). On the other hand, I do not see any inconvenient. I am less confident wrt the other part of my proposal, summarized in the Quantificaton2 diagram in my previous email on the subject [3]. I will discuss the questions I have on that subject after yesterday's discussion in another email. Cheers, Christian [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Horn_Rules_Alternative [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Horn_Rules [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jun/att-0026/Quantification2.png
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2007 15:57:49 UTC