- From: Boley, Harold <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:07:35 -0400
- To: "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
The final PROPOSEDs from the Core Notes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Sep/0140.html are extracted here [and extended by the remaining open Core issue]. -- Harold http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/48 <DaveReynolds> PROPOSED: RIF Core will include member (#) but syntactically restricted its use in rule bodies. Note that in RIF-RDF the equivalent property rdf:type would still be permitted in rule heads. <GaryHallmark> rationale: PRD rules almost always start with "if p is a person and p.age > 16 and ... then ... <Harold> > > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/70 <Harold> PROPOSED: Parameterize the conformance clauses of Core with safeness requirements "strict" and "none" (default: "none"). <Harold> (modulo nice word for "none") <Harold> > > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/71 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Core should keep unrestricted equality and external function and predicate calls in rule bodies and keep external functions calls in rule heads. [ISSUE-72 OPEN, see below] <Harold> > > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/74 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Core should keep both frames/objects and (positional-argument) predicates/relations. <Harold> > > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/75 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Core should keep disjunction in rule bodies, only if this is permitted by the solution to issue-70. <Harold> > > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/76 <Harold> > > PROPOSED: Core should keep unrestricted equality in rule bodies (cf. <Harold> > > ISSUE-71). -----Original Message----- From: Dave Reynolds [mailto:der@hplb.hpl.hp.com] Sent: September 19, 2008 11:32 AM To: Boley, Harold Cc: Axel Polleres; Gary Hallmark; Adrian Paschke; kifer@cs.sunysb.edu; team-rif-chairs@w3.org Subject: Re: RIF-Core: proposing resolutions to current issues . . . > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/72 > PROPOSED: Do not include Skolem functions or a 'New' builtin for Core > (a 'New' construct can be developed for PRD). I would prefer to include the "new" builtin and have that available in both BLD and PRD. My primary motivation is that a substantial number of "in the wild" RDF rule sets do something like this to construct new bNodes. For the observed usages then the proposed "new" builtin would be sufficient and would be implementable in both a BLD and PRD setting. However, PRD seems to be opting for the "new" action, rather than the builtin/skolem function, and that seems to have a Gensym semantics. That's clearly a problem. I assume PRD doesn't want two different forms of "new" and the true Gensym form can't be in Core. I'd like to at least understand the PRD position here before agreeing to this proposal. . . .
Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2008 17:08:18 UTC