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

Re: DTB Review

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 10:04:52 -0400
To: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
cc: "Public-Rif-Wg \(E-mail\)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1048.1242741892@ubehebe>

> Sandro Hawke wrote:
> >> 3.6.2 Predicates on Boolean Values
> >>
> >> I think we need is-true and is-false predicates for boolean in order
> >> to tie them in to true and false in RIF.
> > 
> > I remember us talking about this at F2F13 and deciding people could just
> > use   ="true"^^xs:boolean and ="false"^^xs:boolean.
> 
> Maybe add a note to that effect.

Fine by me.

> >> 3.10.1 Functions on rdf:text
> >>
> >> "he pair 〈s, l〉 in the value space of rdf:text"
> >>
> >> The angle brackets come out as undefined characters in my browser.
> > 
> > Hmmm.  OWL stumbled on this too, deciding it was an IE7 problem.
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Apr/0398.html
> 
> I use firefox.

Interesting.    Axel, let's just use &lt; and &gt; ?

> >> 3.11.1 Position Numbering
> >>
> >> "Positions beyond the end of the list are adjusted by the builtins to
> >> point to the first position after the end of the list. "
> >>
> >> That seems weird.  What's the use case for that?  Negative indexes are
> >> fine, I don't see they imply indexes beyond the end are OK.
> > 
> > It's not really connected to negative indexes.  The reason to have this
> > is that it allows you to append without first asking the length of the
> > list, as long as you know some number greater than the length of the
> > list:
> > 
> >    insert-before(List(0 1 2 3 4) 1000000000 99) = List(0 1 2 3 4 99)
> > 
> > This is, of course, a hack.  I'd support adding append, and then I'd be
> > okay with removing this feature.  (The one other place it comes into play
> > is in sublist; there, too, you can use some big number as a way to get
> > the 3-argument version to act like the 2-argument version.  Not terribly
> > useful.)
> 
> (Hold on, one of the pencils on my desk is a little crooked.  Ah there.  Perf
> ect)
> 
> I dislike this immensely.  Was there objection to adding append to our list 
> operators?

The best record I have is the version of the wiki page where the things
someone objected to were marked "removed" but not yet removed, namely:

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/index.php?title=Lists&oldid=8273#Functions

According to this, and my memory, and the minutes [1], we never
discussed append.  (which is kind of odd)

Shall I add it?

     -- Sandro

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/meeting/2009-04-16
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2009 14:05:01 GMT

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