From: Mike Dean (mdean@bbn.com)
Date: 06/29/04
> 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 syntax. [1] earlier notes that components that can occur any number of times (including zero) are enclosed in braces ({.}) and braces are used in each of these productions, so I think the document is correct as is. > 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. That's my recollection as well, but we can confirm on today's telecon. Mike [1] http://www.daml.org/rules/proposal/abstract.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 06/29/04 EST