W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > April 2009

Re: New version of FLD

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 03:42:06 -0400
To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: RIF WG Public list <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20090406034206.630234d4@kiferserv>


On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 08:28:44 +0100
Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> Michael Kifer wrote:
> > Harold and I have finally implemented a major update to FLD.
> > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/FLD
> > The main changes are:
> > 
> > 1. Aggregates
> > 2. Modules
> > 3. Reification significantly generalized
> > 4. Connectives and quantifiers are now extensible: dialects can add new ones
> >    without the need to expand FLD.
> > 
> > The XML framework of FLD hasn't been updated yet, but this is not so crucial.
> > 
> 
> Wow, that's a pretty major update.
> 
> Not had time to study it properly but one minor comment. I see that both 
> schemas for, and calls to, external terms now have a non-optional 
> location.  You might want to make the location optional in both cases 
> otherwise DTB will need to be rewritten to update all its schemas and 
> the existing PRD and BLD syntax for Externals would need to change.
> Indeed I'm not quite sure what the location part of the schema is for - 
> I can see why we would want a location for some forms of External call 
> but I'm not sure why that's part of the schema as well, surely the 
> location might vary at run time? I'd have expected the schema to just 
> include a flag to indicate whether a location is required. Perhaps I 
> just need to read the document more carefully.

It is optional both in ebnf and in the plain English description (the 1-argument
external is said to be a shortcut). Maybe I missed it somewhere. Can you point
to a specific place?

> Presumably section 6 of BLD will need to be updated to match the new FLD.

It has been updated, but another pass will be needed.

michael
Received on Monday, 6 April 2009 07:46:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:04 GMT