- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 15:02:25 +0000
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- CC: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Michael Kifer wrote: > Christian, > > It can go either way. We chose a more uniform syntax where t() and t[] are > allowed. If it can go either way then I have a mild preference for not allowing t[] - without this case then all frame formulae correspond to a set of RDF triples. Dave -- Hewlett-Packard Limited Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England > 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 Monday, 7 January 2008 15:02:48 UTC