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"
    > 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.

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