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

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

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:19:08 -0500
To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Cc: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <19742.1196705948@cs.sunysb.edu>


> 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?

I recall Sandro said that it is undesirable from the point of view of
forward/backward compatibility, but I forgot why.


> 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):
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions/#dateTime^^rif:iri
> 
> (or, in XML:
> <op>
>    <Const type="rif:iri">
>       http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions/#dateTime
>    </Const>
> </op>
> <arg>...</arg>)
> 
> Btw, does it follows that, if a function name's type if rif:local, the 
> function is a logical function?

What is "logical function"? Something that is defined by the ruleset itself
as opposed to a builtin? Then, I think, it does follow.

> 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?

One might be referring to a function defined by an external ruleset.
(If I understand correctly what you mean by a logical function.)

> >>>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 
> >>scope?
> > 
> > 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...

I am not sure whether I understand what you said, but here it is just part
of a general scoping mechanism, which is in scope (mentioned in the
charter, albeit in the narrow sense of negation.)


	--michael  

> 
> Christian
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 3 December 2007 18:19:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:44 GMT