[Core] PROPOSED Core resolutions from telecon Monday, September 22

The final PROPOSEDs from the Core Notes
are extracted here [and extended by the remaining open Core issue].

-- Harold


<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;
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