Re: [UCR] Action 9 and discussion of UCs

Dave Reynolds wrote:

> 
> Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
> 
>> Dave Reynolds wrote:
>>
>>> "Nothing in the use case motivates the "XML data" (whatever it means) 
>>> nor "XML types" requirements: their respective applications 
>>> interchange data as XML documents, but that tells us nothing about 
>>> how they process the data they interchange."
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> You are absolutely right. What we need here is, indeed, RIF being able 
>> to reference the place where the vocabulary is defined (an XML schema, 
>> in that case, but could be anything else); and maybe also the data 
>> source, but this is another question.
> 
> It's not just the vocabulary but the semantics. For example if your 
> rules are going to do tests and arithmetic on values transmitted over 
> that XML then the semantics of those tests ought to be compatible with 
> the corresponding XML datatypes - including all the annoying corner 
> cases of NaNs, treatment of equality in floats/doubles, type promotion 
> etc. If either end use different representations for the concrete types 
> internally then the RIF "translators" are going to have to compensate (ha).

Yep. You are right. So, that use case supports the "XML types" 
requirements. I will modify the wiki page accordingly.

>> My point is that I am not sure that this is what the "XML data" 
>> requiremnt is about ("RIF must be able to accept XML elements as data").
> 
> I think it is but then I'm more interested in the RDF equivalent and 
> haven't been paying enough attention to the XML requirements.

See my reply to François, on the same subject.

Christian