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

Re: Datamodel Strawman (ACTION-298)

From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:49:46 +0200
Message-ID: <46A6037A.2000302@ilog.fr>
To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Michael Kifer wrote:

> Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr> wrote:
>>>As I understand it, there are basically two places where we may need 
>>>the reference to an external, or application data model:
>>>1. when specifying the type of a variable beyond the builtin types 
>>>(and of a slot if we decide that RIF should allow type checking);
> Typed variables is a step that requires either sorts or a RIF data model
> (at least the classification terms introduced in the current document).

I do not understand that: why cannot be the data model external to RIF 
(e.g., an uder-defined object model) and imported by reference?

In that case, RIF does not need the classification term (the external 
data model does).

>>>As regards case 1, I suppose that a QName is all we need (in addition 
>>>to  the metadata that will tell us what this ruleset requires, e.g. a 
>>>data model represented by an XML schema, the URI of that schema etc).
> I do not understand that.

If you import the datamodel by reference, you will need to specify the 
IRI of the, possibly multiple, data models that your rules use; then, 
you will declare the type of a variable (or constant if needed) relative 
to those IRIs. (like Dave does for ConstDs in [1]).

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jul/0118.html

> I do not understand in your example, below, why do you need typed variables.
> (I understand why they might be needed, but I do not see it in your example.)

It is need for the purpose of rule interchange, that is, to allow the 
receiving part to translate back the rule into its own rule language, 
given its sown pecific mapping between the MISMO schema and the data 
model used by its own rule language.

Does that make my point any clearer?

Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2007 13:50:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:46 UTC