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

RE: Approaching an XML syntax for RIF

From: Boley, Harold <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:17:07 -0500
Message-ID: <E4D07AB09F5F044299333C8D0FEB45E902F6D1B1@nrccenexb1.nrc.ca>
To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: "Christian de Sainte Marie" <csma@ilog.fr>, <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

That RuleML improved a lot since 2003 is exactly the point here.
Java's familiar lower-case convention (instead of "_" prefixes)
has long been used for role/property tags: <_r> now is <slot>;
the attribute named "n" has turned into the first child element
of <slot> to comply with F-logic's complex method names.

-- Harold


-----Original Message-----
From: Bijan Parsia [mailto:bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:16 AM
To: Sandro Hawke
Cc: Christian de Sainte Marie; Boley, Harold; public-rif-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Approaching an XML syntax for RIF 

On Jan 30, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
[snip]
> I lean towards using stripe-skipping (as is there now, more or  
> less), to
> reduce the risk of people looking at the first example XML and  
> deciding
> RIF stinks because of the super-ugly XML.  :-)   But maybe the  
> people who
> matter wont decide so lightly.

I don't consider that consideration a light one. E.g.,:

<http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/10/23/iswc.html>

"""Yes, there really is an element named "_r" which has an attributed  
named "n". Brutal.
So, obviously, the RuleML guys don't intend anyone to deal with  
RuleML instances by hand. The problem, of course, as XML veterans can  
attest, is that this is always wrong: no matter how sincere the  
intent that some markup language is meant to be consumed and produced  
only by machines, it is always the case that some human eventually  
ends up having to deal with that markup.""""

I heard that a lot. I said it myself :)

If you want RIF to be composed with other XML formats (e.g., WSDL),  
the it's really a good idea to make it non-horrendous. Fully explicit  
derivation trees are generally a loser.

Obviously, this is something to trade off other considerations. But I  
don't think it's a light one.

Cheers,

Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 30 January 2007 16:17:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:35 GMT