W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > October 2010

Review XML Data in RIF

From: Adrian Paschke <adrian.paschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 17:59:42 +0200
To: "'RIF'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01a301cb6638$a7bd64c0$f7382e40$@paschke@gmx.de>
Hi Christian,

Here first part of my review of XML Data in RIF.

The document is clearly in the state of a first working draft and has many
editors’ notes left. Several sections and details are missing, like e.g.
the conformance definition. I would propose to make this explicit in
“Status of this Document” section in the beginning, as readers might
wonder why the RIF working group is finished while this document is still
very much a working draft.


C=Comments, Q=Questions

Section 2 Definition (RIF+XML data combination)
…E is a, possibly empty, set of [data model nodes]XP that contains the
information that is represented in the XML data

Q: Does it make sense to have just an XML schema attached with a RIF
document without having any concrete XML data, i.e. an empty XML data set?

C: The constraints on the combination are missing.

Section 2.1 Syntax

C: Since the complete working draft has been written for using Strings to
represent XPath expressions, I propose to remove the editors notes about
rif:IRI as alternative.


Example 2.1.

“Another rule example, below, shows how another kind of XPath expression,
used as an xs:string constant: "@xml:lang"</nowiki>>”

C: </nowiki>> should be removed

A consequence is that such values have to be cast into the required types
when used as arguments to RIF buit-in functions and predicates.

C: RIF built-in functions

to add a frame formula to the condition, to check that the variable ?x is
bound to an element that is, itself, named ex:Customer":

?x["ex:Name" -> ?y]
?x["self::ex:Customer"->?x]


C: This imposes an ordering of the conditions, since ?x first needs to be
bound. So you cannot write:

?x["self::ex:Customer"->?x]
?x["ex:Name" -> ?y]


2.2.2. Combined interpretation of RIF BLD non-document formulas and XML data


C: [component-kind()]CD; [component-name()]CD etc. has not be defined before

Definition (RIF BLD+XML data combined interpretation)
Itruth(Iframe(IDM(e))(IC("expr"^^xs:string), RIFValue(e, expr))) = t (true)

Q: Is it actually an interpretation of a frame as defined in the semantics
of BLD or something which syntactically looks like a frame but semantically
it is different (e.g. order dependent, based on an external schema, at least
for the XPath functions etc.)?


(T1, T2) ∈ Classes(S)2

Q: Why Classes(S)2?


-Adrian
Received on Thursday, 7 October 2010 16:07:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 7 October 2010 16:07:50 GMT