RE: AW: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign

But the idea was to have all the syntax rules in one place for
easy reference and understanding. What would be the reason to 
have two PS's that are not very different  from each other  (or one 
PS split across two documents?), instead of one?  It's harder to
keep track of, and the status of one of them is not clear.

Stella





"Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> 
Sent by: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
09/03/2008 10:28 AM

To
"Chris Welty" <cawelty@gmail.com>, "Jos de Bruijn" <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
cc
"Adrian Paschke" <adrian.paschke@biotec.tu-dresden.de>, 
<public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Subject
RE: AW: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign







Chris,

Because it's BLD's PS, I moved your syntax variant from APS into BLD
(as a temporary Appendix 11).

-- Harold 


-----Original Message-----
From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] 
On Behalf Of Chris Welty
Sent: September 2, 2008 11:45 AM
To: Jos de Bruijn
Cc: Adrian Paschke; public-rif-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: AW: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign



</chair>
I moved the full BLD PS EBNF into the APS document and made a few changes 
that I 
prefer for presentation, in particular I changed:

Syntax for named arguments to use '('Name  TERM)')' instead of (Name '->' 
TERM)
Syntax for frames to use TERM '::' TERM instead of TERM '->' TERM
Syntax for member to use TERM 'TY' TERM instead of TERM '#' TERM
Syntax for subclass to us TERM 'SC' TERM instaed of TERM '##' TERM

TY is a mnemonic for "type", SC for "subclass"

These simple changes make the APS much more readable for me.  It still 
needs to 
be cleaned up some.  Probably ANGLEBRACKIRI can be dropped and replaced 
with 
IRI_REF.

All the references to external grammars should be included for 
convenience, 
again we want people to be able to e.g. print out the grammar page and use 
it as 
a guide for writing rules or implementing parsers.

I'm not able to figure out what IRICONST is, I think syntactically its 
just IRI.
<chair>

-Chris

Jos de Bruijn wrote:
> 
> 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
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
> 

-- 
Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
+1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
cawelty@gmail.com                           Hawthorne, NY 10532
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty