- From: Jos de Bruijn <jos.debruijn@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 12:19:15 +0200
- To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@googlemail.com>
- CC: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, Christian De Sainte Marie <csma@fr.ibm.com>, RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On 05/12/2010 12:09 PM, Dave Reynolds wrote: > On 12/05/2010 09:36, Jos de Bruijn wrote: >> Axel, Christian, all, >> >> I raised my concerns about the RIF-Core spec in a separate email. >> >> Concerning facts about class membership: they are both in BLD and PRD >> (see [1]). >> Concerning class membership atoms in rule conclusions: I do remember >> that we explicitly forbade them in Core. > > That's my recollection too. > > Our official record of the decision [1] was to allow membership "in Core > facts and conditions". > > We did at one point have an EBNF that reflected that resolution. > > My memory [2] was that Gary on behalf of the PRD group later pointed > that asserting membership facts was just as problematic as concluding > them via non ground rules. The problem being that in object-based PR > implementations membership is hardwired in the external data model. Then I find it strange that PRD allows asserting class membership facts. > So > we decided to forbid any assertion of membership facts. I.e. the EBNF > accurately reflects our intention[3]. > > The phrasing in section 2.3 is clarified by "they [equality terms and > class membership terms] are only allowed in rule premises". I agree that > the term rule "premise" is not defined in the document so it could be > clearer but I don't see how one could reasonably interpret a ground fact > as a "premise". I agree that a ground fact could not be interpreted as a premise. However, it is unclear in the phrasing whether the last part of the sentence applies to all formulas or only to rules (whatever they may be). Best, Jos > So it seems to me the normative text and informative > EBNF are in agreement. > > Dave > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/48 > [2] Which I've not been able to validate from the record trail. > [3] That intention may be strange and hard to understand but that's the > nature of working group compromises :) -- Jos de Bruijn Web: http://www.debruijn.net/ LinkedIn: http://at.linkedin.com/in/josdebruijn
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 10:19:52 UTC