Re: [RIF] homework for 10/17 telecon

Dan Connolly wrote:

> I see...
> 
> "In the present version, variables are not sorted and thus can range
> over all constants, Data or Ind."
>  -- http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/A.1_Basis%
> 253A_Positive_Conditions
> 
> Dave, I suggest that <Ind> is what you're after if you want to
> use URIs for names.

Well Inds aren't defined on that page but I can guess what they are :-)

Having variables range over things identified by URIs is one thing but 
surely if we supposed to be constructing a web based exchange language 
we start with a presumption that all potentially clashing or sharable 
symbols like constants, function and relations are identified by URIs?

I raised this back in April[*] when the syntax was first proposed and 
saw no push back at that time.

> I find it a little awkward that not all names
> are URIs, but I can perhaps live with that; I'll probably treat
> the non-uri names as local fragment identifiers or something.

Do you mean you can "live with it" from the point of view of 
implementing some sort of N3 translator or do you mean you would defend 
it if this syntax came to be proposed as a Candidate Rec?

> As to URIs for functions or relations, I'm not sure; so far,
> I have only found a need for URIs as constant symbols.

Would you say the same about builtins?

Are functions, relations to be purely local to the XML source file?
If so how is merging of rulesets supposed to work? Or is that simply out 
of foreseeable scope?

Dave

[*] Point 3 in:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Apr/0091.html

Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 14:40:49 UTC