- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 16:20:44 -0400
- To: Francis McCabe <frankmccabe@mac.com>
- Cc: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> > > On Oct 16, 2006, at 7:18 AM, Michael Kifer wrote: > > > > > > >> Michael Kifer wrote: > >> > >>>> In any case we need IRIs for the relation and function symbols > >>>> irrespective of sorting. > >>> > >>> No, this is the first step in adding sorts. > >> > >> No, surely it's the first step in webizing[*] a language. > >> > >> Dave > > > > You can put it this way, but IRIs and other data types are nicely > > formalized as sorts. So, this is the most natural way to approach > > these > > issues (incl. webizing). I thought it was clear, but if not I hope > > that > > this discussion clears things up. > > > > > > --michael > > > > As I have learned from trying to 'do' types for the last 10+years, > handling types properly in non-trivial. (Waving the sorted-logic wand > over a set of rules does not cut the mustard.) I am talking about using sorts to capture very specific things: primitive data types (and URIs as a special case). I am not talking about a type system. > In any case, the RIF is supposed to be an *interchange* format, not > yet another rule language. That means that it is not enough to come > up with a single type system (a point solution in the multi- > dimensional type space) but a way of capturing types and type systems > that are already in use. You must have gotten a wrong impression because loose terminology may have been used in this discussion. --michael
Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 20:23:44 UTC