From: Pat Hayes (phayes@ihmc.us)
Date: 06/11/04
>Hi JC Colleagues, >as we envisaged in today's Joint Committee telecon, >the XML notation for SCL, XCL >(<http://www.altheim.com/specs/xcl/1.0/>http://www.altheim.com/specs/xcl/1.0/), Er...I thought I made it clear that this was not the final form for XCL. I only posted this document in order to clarify some issues about "XML style" that XCL will adopt. Please don't take the XCL syntax in this document as correct or definitive. In particular, the treatment of the simple implication given there is not how XCL will write it, but is more like the XCL rendering of a typed quantification (forall ((x TrailerTruck)) (eighteenWheeler x)) than the direct implication (forall (x) (implies (TrailerTruck x)(eighteenWheeler x))) Of course the former is syntactic sugar for the latter, but it is a distinct syntactic form in SCL. A minimal SCL kernel would use only simple (untyped) quantification, and, not and implies. Pat >and the XML notation for SWRL rules, RuleML >(<http://www.ruleml.org/inspec/>http://www.ruleml.org/inspec/), >could be converged for the FOL extensions to SWRL. >Today we also discussed the (URI-)naming of layered FOL subsets >that contain the current Horn/DL combination. >One such FOL subset could add explicit, nested quantifiers to SWRL rules >(as suggested for the Issues List); another could add disjunction / >classical negation. >Implications in XCL could be converged to the RuleML Horn-rule syntax. >Formulas beyond SWRL's Horn/DL combination could benefit from XCL. >Appended is an example using an implication from the above XCL draft. >Best, >Harold > >XCL, Section 3.3. Core Elements, uses a sorted notation: >(FORALLx:TrailerTruck) => eighteenWheeler(x) > > <xcl xmlns="<http://purl.org/xcl/1.0/>http://purl.org/xcl/1.0/"> > <formula> > <conn name="implies"> > <quant name="forall" variable="x"> > <type>TrailerTruck</type> > </quant> > <pred name="eighteenWheeler"> > <term name="x"/> > </pred> > </conn> > </formula> > </xcl> > >To keep things simple, let's use TrailerTruck as a unary predicate here: > >FORALL(?x)TrailerTruck(?x) => eighteenWheeler(?x) > >The current RuleML 0.85 assumes implicit quantifiers, obtaining: > ><imp> > <_body> > <atom> > <_opr><rel>TrailerTruck</rel></_opr> > <var>x</var> > </atom> > </_body> > <_head> > <atom> > <_opr><rel>eighteenWheeler</rel></_opr> > <var>x</var> > </atom> > </_head> ></imp> > >For RuleML 0.9 explicit quantifiers are envisaged as an option, here >introducing a type tag <forall> with role tags <_bind> and <_form> >for its 'variable-binding' child and its 'formula' child, respectively: > ><forall> > <_bind> > <var>x</var> > </_bind> > <_form> > <imp> > <_body> > <atom> > <_opr><rel>TrailerTruck</rel></_opr> > <var>x</var> > </atom> > </_body> > <_head> > <atom> > <_opr><rel>eighteenWheeler</rel></_opr> > <var>x</var> > </atom> > </_head> > </imp> > </_form> ></forall> > >The type tag <exists> can employ the same child elements. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 06/11/04 EST