corrections and an issue for SWRL spec esp. in abstract syntax

From: Benjamin Grosof (
Date: 06/26/04

  • Next message: Pat Hayes: "draft of SCL XML syntax"
    Hi Peter and Mike and all,
    Just noticed that there are some "*'"'s missing from the abstract syntax in 
    the SWRL V0.6 document,
    in order for it to correspond to our intention and to the XML serialization 
    In particular, the omissions are in the definitions of builtin, antecedent, 
    consequent, and rule.
    The abstract syntax for builtin should say
    builtIn '(' builtinID { d-object* } ')'
    Likewise, it should be
    antecedent ::= 'Antecedent(' { atom* } ')'
    consequent ::= 'Consequent(' { atom* } ')'
    rule ::= 'Implies(' [ URIreference ] { annotation* } antecedent consequent ')'
    QUESTION:  Any objections to making the above changes to the document?
    Said has volunteered to do the cvs update.
    More subtly, there's another issue in both the abstract syntax and
    the XML serialization syntax:
    do we want to permit a rule to have no atoms in its consequent AND no
    atoms in its antecedent?  I think this was discussed a while ago
    and we decided that it was OK.  But if not, we should say so somewhere
    in the abstract syntax section.
    Benjamin Grosof
    Web Technologies for E-Commerce, Business Policies, E-Contracting, Rules, 
    XML, Agents, Semantic Web Services
    MIT Sloan School of Management, Information Technology group or

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 06/26/04 EST