- From: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:20:07 -0700
- To: "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Just a minor "clarification" for the record: > 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 ... Most PRD rules refer to external object (e.g. Java, XML) models. A basic rule structure like: - rulevariable declaration: person p - rule condition: p.age > 16 - rule action: ... The rulevariable declaration "person p" (TIBCO: declaration; Blaze: pattern; Ilog: variable)) does NOT normally mean the conditional test (ie Boolean expression) "if p is a (member of) person". It simply means "define p as some person". This is subtly different from a member test, although I guess could be viewed as equivalent by some. Further explanation: Note that more typical membership tests would be membership of sets like: - rulevariable declaration: person p, knownFraudsters kf - rule condition: p is a member of kf.setOfFraudsters - rule action: ... Note also that some PR engines do allow you to do some subclass ownership conditions, although I would have to say this is relatively rare. - customer, nonCustomer are subclasses of person - rulevariable declaration: person p - rule condition: p is a customer - rule action: ... ...which may not seem very interesting, but can be useful if I am selecting a subobject of a rulevariable: - customer, nonCustomer are subclasses of person - rulevariable declaration: person p - rule condition: p is a customer and p.spouse is a nonCustomer - rule action: ... Paul Vincent TIBCO | Business Optimization | Business Rules & CEP > -----Original Message----- > From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Boley, Harold > Sent: 23 September 2008 18:08 > To: RIF WG > Subject: [Core] PROPOSED Core resolutions from telecon Monday, September > 22 > > > 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 21:21:14 UTC