- From: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:41:58 -0400
- To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
- CC: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>, "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Agreed, but lets keep in in the APS page while we are working on it and merging it. -Chris Michael Kifer wrote: > We need one syntax and one PS. APS should be merged/made compliant with PS, > which is easy to do. > > michael > > On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 12:36:51 -0400 > Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com> wrote: > >> 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
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2008 17:42:39 UTC