[BLD] Data types and IRIs (was: Re: Action 299 - removing sorts)

Dave Reynolds wrote:
> 
> I'm not convinced we should be treating rif:iri as a datatype.

Is it right that typed constants have i{} as there only signature? If 
yes, wouldn't it solve your problem if all IRIs had signature f0{()->i} 
instead (and thus rif:iri would not be a data type)?

Talking of datatypes, in 2.1.3 (BLD 7/20), "interpretation of primitive 
datatypes", there is a sentence that I do not understand: Michale, you 
wrote that "We assume that Dtype in D for each XML data type and that Dt 
is disjoint from Ds for different XML primitive types s and t". How does 
that conflict with xsd:long being a subtype of xsd:decimal?


> [[[
> class TERM
>     subclass CONST
>         subclass ConstL
>             property name: xsd:string [1]
>         subclass ConstW
>             property iri: xsd:anyURI
>         subclass ConstD
>             property lex: xsd:string
>             property type: xsd:anyURI
> ]]]

Why "name" for ConstL and "lex" for ConstD?

Also, shouldn't we extend VAR as well?
[[[
class TERM
     subclass Var
         property name: xsd:string
         property type: xsd:anyURI
]]]

That is what I do in my strawman for the PR dialect (still being 
drafted) (see also the declaration of the variable in the example in [1])

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jul/0114.html

Last, but not least: since primitive datatypes in BLD are defined by 
reference to an external specification (xsd), can all datatypes be 
handled the same way, whether they are primitive or not (and including 
user-defined ones, e.g. in application data models)?

Christian

Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2007 13:26:32 UTC