Re: AW: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign

Adrian Paschke wrote:
> Chris,
> 
> 
> :: will not work since it can not be inverted, i.e. you can not distinguish
> "body :: head" or "head :: body". 
> 
> <== and <-- might be inverted ==> -->
> 
> -> is already used for frames

I believe Chris wants to change this.
In any case, we cannot use ::, because it is already used for
classification.

Best, Jos

> 
> 
> - Adrian
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] Im
> Auftrag von Chris Welty
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. September 2008 14:32
> An: Adrian Paschke
> Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
> Betreff: Re: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest using these two-character symbols for implication: -> <- => <=
> then replace all -> with :: (or any other sequence of characters would be
> better).
> 
> -Chris
> 
> Adrian Paschke wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>>  
>>
>> With respect to the abridged presentation syntax there is still an open
>> issue about the sign to distinguish the head and the body of a rule.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Currently, we use ":-" in the examples e.g. in UCR and PRD, which is
>> well-known in the logic community but not so much in others including
>> production rules.
>>
>>  
>>
>> I shortly discussed this issue with the BLD/FLD editors Michael and Harold
>> and we came up with this unambiguous proposal to distinguish classical
>> implication and rules head and body.
>>
>>  
>>
>> <== for PRD and BLD
>>
>> <-- for classical
>>
>>  
>>
>> <== and <-- might be also inverted ==> -->
>>
>>  
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>
> 

-- 
Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of
his own mistakes deserves to be called a
scholar.
  - Donald Foster