Re: New RIF drafts

Boley, Harold wrote:
> This is referring to
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/FLD#Well-formed_Terms_and_Formulas
>
> Example 2 (A nested RIF-FLD group annotated with metadata).
>
> where it says (emphasis added):
>
> For better readability, we use the compact URI notation which assumes
> that prefixes are macro-expanded into IRIs. As explained earlier, this
> is just a space-saving device and *not part of the RIF syntax*.
>
> We tried to use a different (italic) font in the wiki for the still
> 'meta-level' compact URI notation:
>
> <tt>dc</tt> ''expands into''
> <tt><nowiki>http://</nowiki>dublincore.org/documents/dces/</tt>
>
> Obviously, this was not clear enough.
>   
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
> I agree that XQuery, SPARQL, RIF, etc. should converge
> on a common syntax soon.
>   
Of those listed, XQuery and SPARQL are both completed RECs; so RIF has 
by far the most flexibility. Would it make sense for RIF to take SPARQL 
notation as a starting point in any concrete syntaxes?
> -- Harold
>