[developers] SEM-I question: properties on 'i' variables

Stephan Oepen oe at ifi.uio.no
Mon Nov 12 23:02:56 CET 2018

> Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant that one of those is redundant to the
> other. Since the NUM property is only relevant for 'x' variables, there
> is no practical difference between the two (please correct me if I'm
> wrong). If it were possible for the ARG0 of def_implicit_q to be an 'e'
> variable (i.e., the other subtype of 'i'), then it would not have the
> NUM property at all. So I cannot imagine any situation where the second
> synopsis of def_implicit_q would apply and the first would not also apply.

it almost sounds as if you are looking at a different pair of SEM-I
entries than the ones you had in your message:

>       def_explicit_q : ARG0 x { NUM sg }, RSTR h, BODY h.
>       def_implicit_q : ARG0 i { NUM sg }, RSTR h, BODY h.

these are in fact two distinct predicates.  the only candidate
improvement i can see to these two entries would be making the ARG0
for ‘def_implicit_q’ to be of type ‘x’ rather than ‘i’ (or
alternatively allowing NUM on ‘i’).


More information about the developers mailing list