- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:21:20 -0400
- To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Cc: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> Michael,
>
> Just a couple questions for clarification.
>
> Michael Kifer wrote:
> >
> > FLD Grammar:
> >
> > Formulaset ::= 'RIFSet(' absolute-IRI? Metadata* Formula* ')'
> > Formula ::= 'Formula(' FORMULACONTENT ')'
>
> Shouldn't that be:
> Formula ::= 'Formula('' absolute-IRI? Metadata* FORMULACONTENT ')'
Yes. (After correcting the typo.)
> > FORMULACONTENT ::= 'And' '(' FORMULACONTENT* ')' |
> > 'Or' '(' FORMULACONTENT* ')' |
> > FORMULACONTENT ':-' FORMULACONTENT |
> > 'Exists' Var+ '(' FORMULACONTENT ')' |
> > 'Forall' Var+ '(' FORMULACONTENT ')' |
>
> So, FLD allows nested quantifiers, right?
Yes.
>
> > BLD grammar:
> >
> > Ruleset ::= 'RIFSet(' absolute-IRI? Metadata* Rule* ')'
> > Rule ::= 'Rule(' absolute-IRI? Metadata* RULECONTENT ' ) '
> > RULECONTENT ::= 'Forall' Var+ '(' BLDATOMIC (':-' CONDITION)? ')' | BLDATOMIC (':-' CONDITION)?
>
> And BLD does not (and, thus, neither does Core). But this does not
> forbid PRD to allow it, if needed; correct?
Yes. FLD is much more general, and dialects can use the space between the
core and what FLD allows.
> > // from here on the grammar is the same as in FLD
> > Metadata ::= ' Metadata ( ' METADATALIST ' ) '
> > METADATALIST ::= absolute-IRI METADATAVALUE | METADATALIST ' ; ' METADATALIST
>
> Why not:
> METADATALIST ::= absolute-IRI METADATAVALUE ( ' ; ' METADATALIST)?
I do not know -- ask Jos.
cheers
--michael
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christian
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 15:21:39 UTC