Re: [RIF] homework for 10/17 telecon (RIF core syntax)

Hi Dan,

Regarding integers, I think you were on the right track with your
previous message: we can use the xsi:type attribute
(http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#xsi_type) on <Data> to point to any
of the XSD datatypes
(http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#built-in-datatypes), e.g.

<Data xsi:type="xs:string">test</Data>
<Data xsi:type="xs:nonNegativeInteger">12</Data>
<Data xsi:type="xs:dateTime">2002-10-10T17:00:00Z</Data>

(XSV properly enforces these, too -- I've tested it.)

The problem with special short-cut syntax for integers (e.g. <Int>) is
what about other datatypes? We could end up with a lot of shortcut
syntax...

>    Con      ::= entity
>
> which I don't understand. What does "entity" mean?

I agree this isn't very clear, but my understanding is that <Con> is
just a constant (i.e. #PCDATA).

David

On 10/13/06, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2006-10-13 at 13:14 -0400, Christopher Welty wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > We expect to spend the bulk of the next telecon discussing the technical
> > proposal [http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/CORE], especially the
> > syntax.
>
> I'm not sure which syntax you mean. I see
>   "A human-oriented syntax, an XML syntax, and the semantics of the
> condition language and of the rule language are given."
>
> That's 4 syntaxes, I guess. And the details of them seem to
> be spread around several wiki topics.
>
> The first grammar rule I see on
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/A.1_Basis%253A_Positive_Conditions
>
> is
>    Con      ::= entity
>
> which I don't understand. What does "entity" mean?
>
> What's the alphabet of this grammar?
>
> I could perhaps disregard the "human-oriented syntax"
> (which I would call programmer-oriented syntax, since most
> humans can't read it) but I don't see how the XML
> syntax for "entity" is specified.
>
> I'm confused by "The non-terminals in all-upercase such as CONDIT become
> XML entities, which act like macros and will not be visible in instance
> markups."
>
> The standard definition of "XML entity" is...
>
> [Definition: An XML document may consist of one or many storage units.
> These are called entities; they all have content and are all (except for
> the document entity and the external DTD subset) identified by entity
> name.]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#dt-entity
>
> I don't think that's what is meant, so I suggest using a different term,
> but I'm not sure what term to suggest, since I don't understand what
> is intended.
>
>
> > To prepare, please try to use the XML syntax to encode some rules.  If you
> > find you need something that is not in the syntax, please note it and be
> > prepared to discuss it.
>
> Encoding of integers.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Sep/0071.html
>
> >   If the syntax is acceptable (it has been there
> > for some time), we will decide at this telecon to accept it as our syntax.
>
> I find the XML syntax nearly acceptable, modulo issues about
> encoding integers, datatyped literals, and language information.
>
> If the WG is going to adopt a "human-readable" syntax, I'll ask
> to consider something closer to SPARQL.
>
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 13 October 2006 19:01:55 UTC