- From: Christian De Sainte Marie <csma@fr.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:06:14 +0200
- To: "Adrian Paschke" <adrian.paschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "'RIF'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 21 July 2009 14:07:44 UTC
"Adrian Paschke" <adrian.paschke@gmx.de> wrote on 21/07/2009 15:48:27:
>
> That was exactly the intention, to demonstrate that you can simulate
> modify by a assert+retract combination.
Then, the test case should be modified. The equivalent to:
Forall ?X (
If ?X[ex:status -> "normal" ex:discount -> "10"]
Then Do ( Modify(?X[ex:discount -> "0"])
would be (modulo the atomicity):
Forall ?X (
If ?X[ex:status -> "normal" ex:discount -> "10"]
Then Do ( Retract (?X[ex:discount -> "10"])
Assert (?X[ex:discount -> "0"])
But the questionraised by the original version of your test case remains:
do we allow a frame about an object to be asserted after that object has
been retracted?
Cheers,
Christian
ILOG, an IBM Company
9 rue de Verdun
94253 - Gentilly cedex - FRANCE
Tel. +33 1 49 08 35 00
Fax +33 1 49 08 35 10
Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus:/ Unless stated otherwise above:
Compagnie IBM France
Siège Social : Tour Descartes, 2, avenue Gambetta, La Défense 5, 92400
Courbevoie
RCS Nanterre 552 118 465
Forme Sociale : S.A.S.
Capital Social : 609.751.783,30 ?
SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 02430
Received on Tuesday, 21 July 2009 14:07:44 UTC