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

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

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:57:42 -0400
To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Cc: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <10691.1185292662@cs.sunysb.edu>


> 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)?

I think this has been resolved -- more or less. Dave's objection was definitional.

> 
> 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?

this is old stuff. has been fixed already


> > [[[
> > 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)?

We now have a precise definition of a primitive data type: lexical space,
value space, and the mapping. Any set of constants that has these
attributes can be treated as a prim DT iin this formalism.




	--michael  
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2007 15:57:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:39 GMT