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

From: Mike Dean ([email protected])
Date: 06/29/04

Next message: Mike Dean: "Joint Committee telecon today 29 June"

Previous message: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: XML syntax for SWRL"
In reply to: Benjamin Grosof: "corrections and an issue for SWRL spec esp. in abstract syntax"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

> 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

Next message: Mike Dean: "Joint Committee telecon today 29 June"
Previous message: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: XML syntax for SWRL"
In reply to: Benjamin Grosof: "corrections and an issue for SWRL spec esp. in abstract syntax"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 06/29/04 EST