- From: Jos de Bruijn <jos.debruijn@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 15:01:09 +0200
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, Christian De Sainte Marie <csma@fr.ibm.com>, Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@googlemail.com>, RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Test case: Document(Group( _a#_b)) Under option 1): This is a positive syntax test for BLD This is a negative syntax test for Core and PRD Under option 2): This is a positive syntax test for Core and BLD. This is a negative syntax test for PRD. Best, Jos On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote: >> 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 >> >> > -- Jos de Bruijn Web: http://www.debruijn.net/ LinkedIn: http://at.linkedin.com/in/josdebruijn
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 13:02:10 UTC