W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > February 2008

Re: RIF test cases

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:51:45 -0500
To: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <15342.1204005105@cs.sunysb.edu>


In unofficial documents people (or us) could makes such simplifying
assumptions, but the official spec should stay clean. Otherwise, we should
go ahead and define  a *real* human readable language, which people could
use and implement.

Remember that initially we had the beginnings of such a syntax, but there
was strong opposition to this. In retrospect, I think it was a good
decision (even though I opposed it) because it enabled us to focus of RIF
rather than on secondary issues, like punctuation, grammar, etc.


	--michael  

> it would be nice if we could allow the syntax in this example test case, 
> i.e.
> p(a->1 b->2)
> as a friendly version of  the more syntactically correct
> p^^rif:local(a^^rif:local->1^^xsd:int b^^rif:local->2^^xsd:int)
> for reasons that should be self-evident.
> 
> Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > Here's an example test case
> >
> >    http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Test_Case_Example
> >
> > copy & edit the source as desired.
> >
> > (more documentation to follow.  :-)
> >
> >     -- Sandro
> >
> >   
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2008 05:52:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:45 GMT