- From: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 07:49:27 -0700
- To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Yes, I like that. Christian de Sainte Marie wrote: > 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 14:51:58 UTC