See also: IRC log
Gary; separate cardinality constraint on frame slots and path expressions
<Gary> _x[a=b]
<Gary> _x.a=b
<Gary> _x[a->b]
<AdrianP> in SWC we also have access to "object" (class) values (values of properties)
<AdrianP> such as ?x[rdf:type -> ex:named]
csma: separate the test on a slot value (whatever the cardinality) and the representation of the value of a single-valued field
obj[attr->val]
Pred(val)
ofq
ofa
Pred(ofa)
forall ?c such that ?c # Customer, if ?c.age > 10 and ?c.revenue < 1000 then
<AdrianP> it could be also expressed as ?c[age ->?v] and ?v >10
?c.age > 10
<PaulVincent> So... this is ?"c.age" or ?(c.age)
<PaulVincent> ... the trouble is that rulevariables map to just the objects, ?c is any Customer etc
<AdrianP> another question is if the path experssions can be nested
<AdrianP> such as (obj.attr1).attr2
<Gary> so, what Christian typed is not equivalent to what Adrian typed. Christian's path expr is really ?c[age=?v] and ?v > 10
<pathExpr> <object>TERM</object><member>Const</member></PathExpr>
<PathExpr> <object><Var>?c</Var></object><member><Const>Customer:age</Const><member></PathExpr>
<AdrianP> yes, it is a short cut for using variables in frames with cardinality constraints
<AdrianP> we could introduce the path experssions as short cuts in the presentation syntax
<scribe> ACTION: re-work strawman proposal to separate cardinality constraint and the possible introduction of path expression [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-rif-prd-minutes.html#action01]
<AdrianP> with semantics defined in terms of frames
<PaulVincent> +1 on different results allowed
<PaulVincent> ... I don't see the rationale for forcing this except maybe as an optional agreed "standard execution" mode / sematics
<Gary> the rationale is of course interoperability
<PaulVincent> ,,, of rules or rule execution?
<scribe> ACTION: Gary to draft a strawman for a more discriminating conflict resolution strategy (keep the initial three steps) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-rif-prd-minutes.html#action02]
<Gary> if x=1 then ...
<Gary> if x=1 and y=2 then ...
<AdrianP> in my view critical path issues are object representation, constraints, rule quantifications, PRD XML syntax
<AdrianP> rule quantifications -> rule qualifications
<AdrianP> bye
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: csma Inferring Scribes: csma WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found. Default Present: csma, Gary, AdrianP, [IPcaller] Present: csma Gary AdrianP [IPcaller] WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Got date from IRC log name: 03 Mar 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-rif-prd-minutes.html People with action items: gary proposal re-work strawman WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found! Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>. Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of new discussion topics or agenda items, such as: <dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]