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

[Fwd: Re: [DTB] Datatypes and Built-ins first run to clean up and extend the initial list]

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:35:31 +0000
Message-ID: <47CB0F93.80802@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>


Axel corrected my misunderstanding of his proposal but can't send 
directly to the list.

Axel: That makes more sense though I would still prefer builtins to be 
IRIs so that I could, for example, annotate them in RDF with metadata.

Dave
-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [DTB] Datatypes and Built-ins first run to clean up and 
    extend  the initial list
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 12:17:53 +0100 (CET)
From: axel@ww.ia.urjc.es
To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
References: <E4D07AB09F5F044299333C8D0FEB45E904FFDDFE@nrccenexb1.nrc.ca> 
    <47CA8433.5090609@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

>
> Boley, Harold wrote:
>
>>  * Added a new syntax proposal for built-ins, which is very simpe:
>>      Why not just add one or two new symbol spaces for built-ins?
>>    We anyway cannot really take the XQuery/XPath functions and ops "as
>> is"
>>    since we have a deviating semantics in some respects, see below and
>>    comments in *bold* font in the document.
>
> That would only work if the set of built-ins were fixed.
>
> RIF must be extensible. It should be possible for groups to add new
> builtins (and new datatypes) without having to add them to a
> rif-specific namespace.

Dave, I am talking about *symbol space* not namespace here!

so, "YOURURI"^^rif:builtinPred would be perfectly valid with that proposal

(cannot reply to the list from that address and forgot the access to my
deri-webmail, so if you could fwd a reply to the list, I'd be grateful)

best,
Axel
> Dave
> --
> Hewlett-Packard Limited
> Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
> Registered No: 690597 England
>
>
Received on Sunday, 2 March 2008 20:56:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:47 GMT