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

Re: Approaching an XML syntax for RIF --> other

From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:56:14 +0100
Message-ID: <45BF5C8E.2090402@ilog.fr>
To: "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
CC: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>, Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-rif-wg@w3.org

Boley, Harold wrote:

>>E.g., for the condition in Harold's example to be actually 
>>interchangeable between applications, the interchanging parties would 
>>need to agree on the definitions of 'purchase' as a predicate and of 
>>'book' as a function, in most cases including a specification of the 
>>types of the arguments etc.
> That we mapped all of Rel, Fun, Ind, and Data to Con, as in
>       [...]
> was to accommodate multisorted logic, a previous design choice.

Right. Which means, I assume, that the link between RIF "payload 
identifiers" and the applications shared data model goes through the sorts?

Could we dig a little bit more into that? Suppose the parties 
interchanging the rule that contain your example have agreed to 
interchange data according to an XML Schema that defines (not sure it is 
correct, but you get the idea):

<complexType name=person>
     <element name="name"/>

<compleType name="item">

<complexType name="purchase">
       <element name="buyer" type="person"/>
       <element name="seller" type="person"/>
       <element name="purchasedItem" type="item"/>

How would that mix with the RIF XML syntax if they want to interchange a 
rule that contains you example condition?

Received on Tuesday, 30 January 2007 14:58:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:41 UTC