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. 
   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 
   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 
overcomes the original resolution [3] (if that path is chosen, I would kindly ask to record my abstention)

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:

> 
> The resolution about membership in Core is recorded here: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/meeting/2009-01-15#resolution_3 
> 
> It was, indeed, to allow membership in Core facts and conditions. 
> 
> Cheers, 
> 
> Christian 
> 
> IBM
> 9 rue de Verdun
> 94253 - Gentilly cedex - FRANCE
> Tel. +33 1 49 08 35 00
> Fax +33 1 49 08 35 10
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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. 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". 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 :)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 €
> SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 03644
>

Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 12:00:08 UTC