W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2002

Re: Comments/questions on lBase (ACTION 2002-10-18#1)

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 20:58:47 +0200
To: "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>, "R. V. Guha" <guha@guha.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF1B51EB27.7FC4BA8F-ONC1256C59.00667DA3-C1256C59.0068421A@agfa.be>

> Thanks for the detailed work.  In summary, was that a thumbs up to
> (modulo correction of detail) or a thumbs down.

that's indeed a nice review
I have read the document by now (and also Graham's review)
and I would say "thumbs up"

in 2.1 I'm not conviced that names should be anything
else but urirefs

also in there, why not take decimals as in xsd:decimal?

and is a Relation with an extension which is the
empty set forbidden?

function terms are indeed interesting

in 2.3 can one say that f(y,x1,...,xn) means f(x1,...,xn) =y

again, "the name Relation to denote the property of having
a relational extension"  could that be the empty set?

if E is:                | then I(E) is:
...                     |
a special name          | ISN(E)

that the language is compact is indeed interesting

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 14:59:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:01 UTC