http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Feb/0054.html

Do( (?x _o[_p->?x])

Do( (?x _o[_p=?x] ) Assert(_o[_p=(?x * 10)]))

<PVincent> Qu: can we have multi-dimension values for slot values eg (index, value) ?

Do( (?x _o[_p=?x] ) Modify(_o[_p->(?x * 10)]))

_o[_p->1]

if _o[_p->1] or _o[_p->2] then Do( (?x _o[_p->?x]) Retract(_o[_p->?x]) Assert(_o[_p->?x+1]))

<cke> we need a resolution on modify

if _o[_p->?y] and (?y = 1 or ?y = 2) then Do( (?x _o[_p->?x])

Retract(_o[_p->?x]) Assert(_o[_p->?x+1]))

<cke> repeatability controls if rule2 will fired once.

forall ?y, if _o[_p->?y] and (?y = 1 or ?y = 2) then Do( (?x _o[_p->?x]) Retract(_o[_p->?x]) Assert(_o[_p->?x+1]))

_o[_p->1]

_o[_p->2]

<PVincent> Rule will fire a 2nd time as o.p has changed, surely, and a condition now becomes valid?

<PVincent> PS: Always best to consider "or"s as separate rules IMHO...

<Gary> we have to check if these rules are Core-Safe

@Gary: yes, they are, because of _o[_p->?y] in th econdition

<Gary> yes but there are some funny conditions about disjunctions

if _o[_p->1] or _o[_p->2] then Do( (?x _o[_p->?x]) Assert(_o[_p->?x+1]))

forall ?y, if _o[_p->?y] and (?y = 1 or ?y = 2) then Do( (?x _o[_p->?x]) Assert(_o[_p->?x+1]))

_o[_p->1]

<PVincent> if _o[_p->1] or _o[_p->2] then Do( (?x _o[_p->?x]) Retract(_o[_p->?x]) Assert(_o[_p->?x+1])) --> isnt the action here doing the match (ie for all...) ?

_o[_p->1] _o[_p->2]

<PVincent> Isn't this a boundary case anyway, covering Core --> PRD mappings, vs the usual case of vendorPR --> PRD --> vendorPR ?

<PVincent> Garys proposal: use metadata to mark a rulevariable?

<cke> if we had to use metadata, I would put them in rules (not in variables)

_o[_x->1]

if ?o[_x->1] then Do(Retract(?o[_x->1]) Assert(?o[_x->1]))

<PVincent> for o.x if o.x=1 then o.x=1 ? Another boundary case?

<PVincent> ... so this is a problem for non-modify cases...

From Feb3: <Gary> if Modify(obj[slot->value]) means the same as Do(Retract(obj[slot->*]) Assert(obj[slot->value])) then I am in favor of Modify

<cke> this looks good

<PVincent> +1

<cke> +1

<Gary> +1

PROPOSED: add a Modify(frame), with the sematics that Modify(obj[slot->value]) means the same as Do(Retract(obj[slot->*]) Assert(obj[slot->value]))

<cke> +1

RESOLUTION: add a Modify(frame), with the sematics that Modify(obj[slot->value]) means the same as Do(Retract(obj[slot->*]) Assert(obj[slot->value]))

<PVincent> +1

<Gary> +1

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133  of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: csma
Inferring Scribes: csma

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Default Present: Gary, csma, cke, [IPcaller]
Present: Gary csma cke [IPcaller]

WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting


WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Got date from IRC log name: 10 Feb 2009
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/02/10-rif-prd-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report