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

DTB reviews and todos

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 20:21:20 +0100
Message-ID: <4A11B530.3090203@deri.org>
To: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Apart from Michael's mail [1] and Adrian's preliminary review [2] I 
didn't get updated reviews yet.

They have both been addressed, some maybe need discussion:

> Section 2.2.
> “The semantics of external terms in RIF-FLD and RIF-BLD is defined using
> two mappings: Iexternal and Itruth ο Iexternal….” 
> What about RIF Core and RIF PRD. The condition language of PRD and the newly
> introduced external print built-in use this semantics from DTB (FLD) – so
> they should be mentioned as well.

For the moment, I changed this to:

"The semantics of external terms is defined using
two mappings: Iexternal and Itruth ο Iexternal…."

does that do the trick?

> “RIF supports identity for typed literals through the "=" predicate in all
> dialects that extend RIF-CORE. Identity for typed literals is defined as
> being the same point in the value space for that type.”
> That would disallow future order-sorted typed RIF dialects to be extensions
> of RIF Core – literals are equal if they belong to the same sort (type) or
> a sub-type.

I don't see that this is prevented. The identity notion can be extended 
for those, but the sentence still holds, doesn't it?
I left that unchanged.

> func:not
> Maybe we should add a sentence about the difference of this not function
> built-in and negation as e.g. in PRD to make it explicit – but it is also
> fine as it 

I left it as it is.

> Maybe a general “RIF DTB Extensibility” section at the end could be
> helpful which describes how future RIF dialects would extend RIF DTB and how
> user-defined functions and built-ins can be defined with respect to the
> “normative” DTB built-ins.

Good idea, but I not if we want to go to LC tomorrow. otherwise I am 
open to discuss this. Anyways the necessary ingredients are there in
DTB. We could mention PRD as an example of a dialect that extends the 
coheent set of external schemata of DTB.

Here two more TODOs which are less clear:

* Speaking of "primitive datatypes" should be avoided

We call our datatypes "primitive" but this is not in compliance with
since we also use "primitive" for what are actually "ordinary" datatypes 
following XSD. I suggest we just speak about datatypes.

* in my BLD review, I suggested that the Base Directive should refer to 
*absolute* iri:

     "where iri is a unicode string in the form of an *absolute* IRI

  if we agree on that, then it also should be adopted in DTB.


1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009May/0135.html
2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009May/0101.html

Dr. Axel Polleres
Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, 
email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Monday, 18 May 2009 19:22:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:56 UTC