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

Re: [SWC] comments/review SWC - replies to Jos' replies on part 1 of the review.

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:01:21 +0200
Message-ID: <486A2AA1.8070206@inf.unibz.it>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
CC: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

>>> There are more than one syntaxes, e.g. the RDF/XML syntax.
>>
>> there is ONE abstract syntax, defined in the RDF-Concepts document. 
>> RDF/XML is a concrete syntax.
> 
> ok, then write
> 
> "The abstract syntax of the names in these sets [...]"

I now found a phrasing that avoids the word "syntax":
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#RDF_Vocabularies_and_Graphs

>>> It is weird. Something that "conforms" conforms to *something*, so 
>>> what is this something here?
>>
>> The set of data types you consider for the RIF document.
> 
> Ok ,then write it:
> 
> "Definition. Let T be the set of considered datatypes. A datatype map D
> is a conforming datatype map if it satisfies the following conditions:"
> 
> -->
> "Definition. Let T be the set of considered datatypes. A datatype map D
> is \emph{conforming with T} if it satisfies the following conditions:"
> 

In that case the set of considered data types needs to be made explicit 
whenever referring to conforming datatype maps.  From my point of view, 
this would be clutter making the definitions harder to read.
Besides, it is already obvious from the definition what the datatype map 
conforms with.

>>> I think I would like to have the pred for illxml in DTB... since 
>>> people who want to *implement* rif-rfd, need to implement it 
>>> anyway... or no?
>>
>> No, the predicate does not need to be implemented.  It is a very 
>> simple axiomatization, depending on the vocabulary of the RDF graph.
>>
>> There is, therefore, no way of defining this predicate without the 
>> context of an RDF graph, because ill-typed XML literals cannot be 
>> written in RIF.
> 
> Yes, but: So, what are you axiomatizing here then???
> 
> ({Forall (ex:illxml(tr("s"^^rdf:XMLLiteral)))} for every non-well-typed 
> literal of the form (s, rdf:XMLLiteral) in VTL) union
> 
> The axioms can't be written either... So, the problem is exactly the 

You forgot the translation function. In the example, 
tr("s"^^rdf:XMLLiteral) is some constant in the rif:local symbol space.

> same. I anyway assume you believe me that in my rule system I can, 
> without any problem, write a built-in which exactly takes a literal as 
> input and checks whether its symbol space is xmlliteral and checks 
> wether it is ill-defined, yes?

You can check whether a string is in the lexical space of xmlliteral.
The string is not the same thing as an ill-typed literal, because an 
ill-typed literal is a pair.

Best, Jos

> 
> cheers,
> Axel
> 

-- 
Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
If knowledge can create problems, it is not
through ignorance that we can solve them.
   - Isaac Asimov
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2008 13:00:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:50 GMT