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

Re: Any proposals for a Concise RIF XML Syntax?

From: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 17:00:36 -0700
Message-ID: <48336624.8010800@oracle.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org

Right.  Even though I suggested it, I don't really support it. I'm happy 
with Rigid RDF (perhaps we should call it Rigid XML?)

Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> I also had a suggestion, which boiled down to this:
>>
>> 1. start with fully striped
>> 2. when the Class stripe is uniquely determined by its enclosing 
>> property stripe, then omit the Class stripe.
>>
>> XML Schema provides the "complexType" construct to implement #2
>> This is similar in strongly typed OO languages like java -- One declares 
>> the class information, e.g
>>
>> Class C1 { C2 c2; }
>> Class C2 { C3 c3; }
>>
>> Then one constructs references such as c1.c2.c3, not c1.C1.c2.C2.c3.C3. 
>>     
>
> The problem I see with this (and it's probably a problem with all stripe
> skipping) is how it interacts with extensibility.  I imagine people
> adding extensions by creating "subclasses".  If the name of that
> subclass isn't looked at -- or isn't even serialized! -- then there's no
> way to know the meaning.
>
> For a rough example, an extension of NAF (as Axel once talked about)
> into StableModelsNAF and WellFoundedNAF, would likely just change the
> syntax by replacing a <NAF> class tag with <SMNAF> or something.
> Obviously, if we ignore/omit the class stripe, you'd get the wrong
> semantics.    Of course, one could force the class name into the
> property name, but...    Hmmm.
>
>     -- Sandro
>
>   
>> Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>     
>>> Occasionally people talk about making the XML syntax for RIF more terse
>>> and easy to read by humans.   I remember Jos and Hassan saying things in
>>> this direction fairly recently.
>>>
>>> A long time ago we went through a suggestion I had for this -- I
>>> proposed some rules for when you could skip a stripe as redundant -- but
>>> we decided against that (with me concurring).
>>>
>>> I wonder if there are any other proposals for a concise RIF XML syntax?
>>> If so, they'd need to come forward very very soon.  (Some would say it's
>>> too late already, but...  *shrug*)
>>>
>>> I started a table where one could do an ad hoc version of this:
>>>     http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD_Syntax_Table
>>>
>>> Please edit at will, with comments here, if this is something you're
>>> interested in.
>>>
>>>      -- Sandro
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/01/30-rif-minutes.html
>>>     http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Arch/XML_Syntax_Issues_1
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>
>   
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2008 00:03:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:49 GMT