W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-comments@w3.org > December 2009

Re: Annotations, Module References and Local Names

From: Christian De Sainte Marie <csma@fr.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:30:20 -0800
To: cd@di.fct.unl.pt
Cc: public-rif-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF17FB4BB7.07FF85BD-ON88257687.008060D5-88257687.00811CE5@fr.ibm.com>
Dear Carlos,

Carlos Damasio wrote on 28 September 2009:
> 
> I believe that the FLD document does not specify completely the the 
> combination of annotations with remote formulas.
> First, it is possible to write
> 
> (* _xpto *) _a() @ _univ(1) @ _univ(2)
> 
> According to the specification the annotation refers to the whole 
> formula _a() @ _univ(1) @ _univ(2), but in section 4.2.2 this case is 
> absent.
> So, I understand this as the annotation is referring  to the inner 
> _a(). Is this the intent?
 
Thank you for pointing out the omission of this case in the 
presentation-to-XML mapping in Section 4.2.2. This oversight has now been 
corrected. Regarding the question of whether (* _xpto *) refers to _a() or 
to _a() @ _univ(1), both parsings are possible. Note that the presentation 
syntax is abstract and no attempt has been made to define precedence 
rules. In XML, however, ambiguity does not arise.

> Furthermore, notice that it is also syntactically correct  the fragment:
> 
> (* _xpto1 *) (* _xpto2 *) (* _xpto3 *) _a() @ _univ(1) @ _univ(2)
> 
> How is this handled, since <Remote> does not allow meta information? 
> Should it be discarded?
 
As mentioned, the oversight of dropped meta information from the <Remote> 
tag has been corrected. So this is no longer an issue. The above 
expression happens to parse unambiguously as (* _xpto1 *) ((* _xpto2 *) 
((* _xpto3 *) _a()) @ _univ(1)) @ _univ(2). The annotation given in (* 
_xpto3 *) will be inside <Atom>...</Atom> and the other two annotations 
will be inside <Remote>...</Remote>.

> Moreover, notice that I have been using local names with "_" before, 
> as specified by the grammar (this is not done in Example 4 of RIF-FLD).
> This is very unpleasant and unnecessary since the initial "_" can be 
> removed without creating ambiguity in the Grammar. Otherwise, please 
> correct Example 4 of RIF-FLD.

There was a typo in which Course appeared by itself in that example. It 
has been changed to u:Course. The symbol Course was not intended to be 
local. Do you see any other typos of this kind?

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:
public-rif-comments@w3.org>  (replying to this email should suffice). In 
your acknowledgment please let us  know whether or not you are satisfied 
with the working group's response to your  comment.

Best regards,

RIF WG 

---------------------------------------------------
Christian de Sainte Marie

IBM
9 rue de Verdun
94253 - Gentilly cedex - FRANCE
Tel. +33 1 49 08 35 00
Fax +33 1 49 08 35 10


Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus:/ Unless stated otherwise above:
Compagnie IBM France
Siege Social : 17 avenue de l'Europe, 92275 Bois-Colombes Cedex
RCS Nanterre 552 118 465
Forme Sociale : S.A.S.
Capital Social : 611.451.766,20 ?
SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 03644
Received on Wednesday, 9 December 2009 23:30:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 December 2009 23:31:00 GMT