- From: Christian De Sainte Marie <csma@fr.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 14:32:18 +0200
- To: "Paul Vincent" <pvincent@tibco.com>
- Cc: "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF99A7E209.A16FA8C7-ONC12575B4.0040A2FD-C12575B4.0044E122@fr.ibm.com>
********* NOTICE ********** My new email address at IBM is: csma@fr.ibm.com My ILOG email address will not be forwarded after June 8 ***************************** </Chair> Paul, public-rif-wg-request@w3.org wrote on 11/05/2009 12:30:57: > > I believe the "misquote" mentioned should in fact be the understatement: > "Gary wants to translate frames to Java objects". > [...] > I suggest that the above is (likelihood> 99% IMHO) true regardless of > Prolog compiler performance... I completely agree with you. And it is, indeed, an understatement: I guess that Gary, like ILOG, does not especially _want_ to translate frames to Java objects, but that he has to do it, if he wants to do anything with RIF... I hoped that we would be able to include something more easily translated to/from objects in PRD, and maybe even in Core. We did not converge fast enough to have it in PRD 1.0 :-( On the other hand, one might argue that it is better to have PRD 1.0 as a basic PR dialect, and to design a full-fledged object-oriented extension on top of it (which you have always supported, I think)... > On frames-objects: "... there are significant semantics/functionality > differences ..." probably deserves some attention. One of the main difficulty is to related them (objects and frames), although the addition of lists makes it easier: using the usual object.field notation to denote the value of an object's field, something like the following must hold: Forall ?o, ?p, ?v, ?o[?p->?v] <=> (?o.?p = ?v or pred:list-contains(?o.?p, ?v)) (you know that I supported introducing an object specific notation as a new form of TERM :-) <Chair> But the point raised by Gary is more general than that (I mean, than the problem with cardinality etc). What one thing that Gary says, I think, is that frames, in their current definition, are not syntactic sugar for binary atoms, since you have different constraints on the predicate in an atom and a slot in a frame. Or, stated another way, that slot names cannot be individuals (e.g. typed constants), not anymore than predicates can be individuals. See also Dave's reply [1] and following thread. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009May/0082.html 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, 12 May 2009 12:33:09 UTC