- From: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:02:45 -0800
- To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
- CC: Patrick Albert <palbert@ilog.fr>, Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, Adrian Paschke <Adrian.Paschke@gmx.de>, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
I think we don't have to distinguish "creation" vs. "modification" for unconditional conclusions (aka facts). It seems the worst thing that happens is we have to translate _o # eg:class1 _o # eg:class2 The translator can always look ahead at *all* the facts before deciding what to do. In this case, the translator searches for a constructor (taking no arguments) that can create an instance of eg:class1 *and* eg:class2. Because we allow # only in unconditional conclusions, this kind of lookahead is always easy and possible. Michael Kifer wrote: > On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:06:02 +0100 > "Patrick Albert" <palbert@ilog.fr> wrote: > > >> Right, this task stretches us a little too much... :-/ >> >> I am happy to support your proposal "allow # and ## in Core in rule >> conditions and *unconditional* rule conclusions" as long as in the >> "unconditional conclusions" we limit ourselves to the creation of new >> objects, not including the modification of the class of an already >> existing object. >> > > The latter (creation vs modification) is not possible to define in the core. >
Received on Monday, 17 November 2008 17:04:28 UTC