W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > December 2007

Re: (ISSUE-40) Builtins and logic functions in BLD

From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:30:37 +0100
Message-ID: <47542F2D.7000807@ilog.fr>
To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
CC: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, public-rif-wg@w3.org

Michael Kifer wrote:
>>>>>I made a proposal that we should treat builtins using the same mechanism as
>>>>>modules. [...]
>>>Dave Raynolds wrote:
>>>>Isn't the URI enough to avoid clashes?
>>Why do you need more than that to identify built-ins?
> I do not. (see the quoted text below)

So, does somebody object to external functions being identified by their 
type (rif:iri) and IRI?

E.g. the Uniterm used to represent a call to the XPath fn:dateTime 
function would have as its "op" the following "Const" (if I got it right):


(or, in XML:
   <Const type="rif:iri">

Btw, does it follows that, if a function name's type if rif:local, the 
function is a logical function?

And can a function whose name's type is rif:iri be a logical function? 
Why would one want to use an IRI instead of a local name?

>>>But, on the other hand, the same builtin may be defined by different
>>>libraries, and the module system may open a way to use different libraries.
>>Are you talking about different implementations of the same built-in? 
>>Here again, if we are talking about RIF-BLD built-ins, isn't that out of 
> Why is it out of scope? This kind of considerations are a fair game.
> I am not saying that this is what I would push, but this kind of
> extensibility is not a bad idea.

Well, whether and how to point to an implementation of an external 
function is metadata, so, it is at least out of the scope of a 
resolution fo issue 40...

Received on Monday, 3 December 2007 16:30:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:48 UTC