- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:43:11 -0400
- To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:37:41 +0200 Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it> wrote: > > > Michael Kifer wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:29:54 +0200 > > Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it> wrote: > > > >>>> The second issue is not an error, but it can be considered misleading > >>>> (the BNF is too liberal): in the presentation syntax, rules are > >>>> quantified rule implications. So, an atomic formula is not a rule and > >>>> may thus not be directly included in a group. According to the BNF, an > >>>> atomic formula can be considered a rule; this is misleading. > >>> There was a mistake in the math syntax. Groups should also allow atomic > >>> formulas. Fixed. > >> One more thing: atomic formulas can also contain variables. I guess > >> that such non-ground atomic formulas should not be allowed in groups? > > > > I see no reasons why such formulas should be disallowed. They are allowed as part of the KB, so why disallow them in groups? > > > I thought all variables in BLD need to be explicitly quantified? Oh, I see. Then probably those nonground atoms must also be quantified. This will likely involve changes in the EBNF. I'll check what's the best way.
Received on Friday, 11 July 2008 16:44:05 UTC