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

Re: [RIF-XMLdata] Updated draft (reply to Gary)

From: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 23:25:46 -0700
Message-ID: <499257640909142325x3643a2c8j36031a76514f428f@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christian De Sainte Marie <csma@fr.ibm.com>
Cc: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Christian De Sainte Marie
<csma@fr.ibm.com> wrote:
> What I propose is to specify the notions that we need independently of XDM,
> and point out that the definitions are copied from XDM, or similar to
> definitions in XDM, without refering to XDM more than that. Would that be
> better?
Yes, only the bits of XDM that we will map to RIF should be
introduced. E.g. there is no need to talk about all 3 parts of the
expanded QName if we only map the namespace and local name.
> Regarding the notions of context, see my reply to Dave similar comment:
> would my proposal work with you?
I'm not sure what your proposal is, other than replacing the notions
of context with something else. I would like to see it made clear, as
in SWC, that the Import statement could be replaced with a set of RIF
fomulas constructed from the imported xml document(+ schema) following
some simple mappings, as your section 4.1 specifies.
> I was thinking of adding a third syntax for slot names to retrieve the slot
> sequence as a whole, instead of item by item.
> Something like: if the slot name looks like "URI#All(NAME)", the
> slot-sequence is the same as if the local name was just NAME, but the frame:
> ?x[URI#All(NAME)->?y] is true iff ?y is a rif:list that is equal to the
> slot-sequence (thus preserving document order).
> Should we add that? I think that Dave asked for something similar, in his
> comments on the previous version.

Maybe better to always use Lists. Its easy enough to write a simple
core rule to remove the list, if desired.
E.g. If ?o[p->?v] and list-contains(?v,?i) Then ?o[q->?i]
>> Also, for some use cases, it may be desirable to
>> embed simple xml documents as nested positional terms, e.g.
>> Customer(name("john") account(111))
> You mean, to allow the reference to the Customer to be anonymous?
More to allow for the use case where xml data is used to represent
simple structured terms like you would see in prolog.
> Why not? Shall we table this as a possibility for the next version?

>> Why overload Import profile by allowing it to contain a schema location?
>> Why not have 2 profiles: xml-data and xml-schema-data, where the second
>> takes an additional 2 locations, one for the data document, and one for
>> the schema document?
> I do not understand: what is the benefit of *not* using the existing
> construct, since we use it exactly for the purpose it what created to
> fulfil?
what if the profile URI is http://foo.bar. Is this the URI of a
schema? or maybe it is a profile defined by some extension I don't
know about?  I think the profile URIs should be some fixed set.
>> Can a schema-less xml document convey type information, e.g. <Account
>> xsi:type="xs:integer">111</Account>?
> Shall we table that for the next version?


Gary Hallmark
Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 06:26:21 UTC

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