- From: Adrian Paschke <adrian.paschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 16:29:22 +0200
- To: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>, "'Axel Polleres'" <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Cc: "'Christian De Sainte Marie'" <csma@fr.ibm.com>, "'Dave Reynolds'" <dave.e.reynolds@googlemail.com>, "'Jos de Bruijn'" <jos.debruijn@gmail.com>, "'RIF'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
If we allow class membership facts in Core this BLD test case is also a Core test case: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Class_Membership -Adrian -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] Im Auftrag von Sandro Hawke Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. Mai 2010 14:10 An: Axel Polleres Cc: Christian De Sainte Marie; Dave Reynolds; Jos de Bruijn; RIF Betreff: Re: Summary: Urgent: Issue with RIF-Core EBNF Grammar? > So, it seems we have two options: > > 1) rather painless, but contradicting the group's original resolution, = > i.e.=20 > accept the rewording suggested by Jos [1] to clarify 2.3. > > 2) stick to the resoultion, by either adopting c) or d) from [2] (the = > resolution [3] is not clear about whether=20 > universal facts should be allowed or not) and fix both 2.3 and the = > EBNF grammar. > > As I understand it, going for 1) needs at the very least a new group = > resolution that=20 > overcomes the original resolution [3] (if that path is chosen, I would = > kindly ask to record my abstention) I'd love to see some test cases for this, perhaps on both sides. -- Sandro > Axel > > 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2010May/0057.html > 2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2010May/0052.html > 3. http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/meeting/2009-01-15#resolution_3 > > On 12 May 2010, at 12:31, Christian De Sainte Marie wrote: > > >=20 > > The resolution about membership in Core is recorded here: = > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/meeting/2009-01-15#resolution_3=20 > >=20 > > It was, indeed, to allow membership in Core facts and conditions.=20 > >=20 > > Cheers,=20 > >=20 > > Christian=20 > >=20 > > IBM > > 9 rue de Verdun > > 94253 - Gentilly cedex - FRANCE > > Tel. +33 1 49 08 35 00 > > Fax +33 1 49 08 35 10 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@googlemail.com> > > To: Jos de Bruijn <jos.debruijn@gmail.com> > > Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, Christian De Sainte = > Marie/France/IBM@IBMFR, RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org> > > Date: 12/05/2010 12:09 > > Subject: Re: Urgent: Issue with RIF-Core EBNF Grammar? > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > That's my recollection too. > >=20 > > Our official record of the decision [1] was to allow membership "in = > Core=20 > > facts and conditions". > >=20 > > We did at one point have an EBNF that reflected that resolution. > >=20 > > My memory [2] was that Gary on behalf of the PRD group later pointed=20= > > > that asserting membership facts was just as problematic as concluding=20= > > > them via non ground rules. The problem being that in object-based PR=20= > > > implementations membership is hardwired in the external data model. So=20= > > > we decided to forbid any assertion of membership facts. I.e. the EBNF=20= > > > accurately reflects our intention[3]. > >=20 > > The phrasing in section 2.3 is clarified by "they [equality terms and=20= > > > class membership terms] are only allowed in rule premises". I agree = > that=20 > > the term rule "premise" is not defined in the document so it could be=20= > > > clearer but I don't see how one could reasonably interpret a ground = > fact=20 > > as a "premise". So it seems to me the normative text and informative=20= > > > EBNF are in agreement. > >=20 > > Dave > >=20 > > [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=20 > > nature of working group compromises :) > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus:/ Unless stated otherwise above: > > Compagnie IBM France > > Siege Social : 17 avenue de l'Europe, 92275 Bois-Colombes Cedex > > RCS Nanterre 552 118 465 > > Forme Sociale : S.A.S. > > Capital Social : 611.451.766,20 =80 > > SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 03644 > >=20 > >
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 14:30:00 UTC