- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:42:55 +0200
- To: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
- CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Gary Hallmark wrote: > consider this ruleset: > > _P(0) > Forall ?x (_Q(?x) :- _P(?x)) > > I claim that this is a Core ruleset, valid in both PRD and BLD, and that > in both dialects, _Q(0) is entailed. Absolutely. No doubt about that. > Obviously, we want _P(0) to be a ground fact in both dialects. From a PRD point of view, we want _P(0) to be a ground fact in w. In PRD, it represents the action to ASSERT _P(0): it is an ACTION, not an ATOMIC. However, I agree that it makes the XML syntax in PRD and BLD different (since BLD does not require that a bodyless ATOMIC be enclosed in an <Implies> and a <then> element): what about making RULE ::= [ Forall | Implies | ASSERT ]? That way, PRD and BLD would be undistinguishable wrt that case. Cheers, Christian
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2008 11:42:48 UTC