- 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
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 UTC