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.


> 3.6.1.1 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
  http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#dt-primitive
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
         [RFC-3987]."

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

Axel



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, 
Galway
email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Monday, 18 May 2009 19:22:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:08 GMT