Re: [RIF] homework for 10/17 telecon

Christopher Welty wrote:
> All,
> 
> We expect to spend the bulk of the next telecon discussing the technical 
> proposal [http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/CORE], especially the 
> syntax.  
> 
> To prepare, please try to use the XML syntax to encode some rules.  If you 
> find you need something that is not in the syntax, please note it and be 
> prepared to discuss it.  If the syntax is acceptable (it has been there 
> for some time), we will decide at this telecon to accept it as our syntax.

That page has certainly been there for some time but I have not noticed 
it containing a proposal for an XML syntax that is sufficiently 
specified for us to consider whether or not to accept it. I have been 
assuming it was still work in progress.

For the XML syntax all I see is loose sketch of an approach for how to 
convert the BNF to XML and an example viz "example 2".

For the approach the reference to adapting XML elements from RuleML is a 
little ambiguous. I'm not sufficiently familiar with RuleML to know if 
just means taking the element names and namespace (what is the namespace 
by the way?) or carries with it other syntactic productions and constraints.

However, it was the example itself which left me with the (apparently 
mis-)understanding that this was still work in progress since the 
terminals in there don't meet our needs. For example, we require that 
functions and relations be identifiable with URIs - I see no URIs, 
qnames or curis in that example. We need typed literals of some form and 
whilst there has been some discussion on that as a result of DanC's 
questions I see nothing those pages that suggests what the final 
proposed approach is. That example includes a constant "$49" which I 
have assuming is a place holder for some structured value mean to be a 
integer with an associated currency tag. The variables will need meet 
W3C i18n standards and I see no part of that sketch which explains the 
i18n approach.

Finally, is it your intention to vote on the syntax for the core 
condition language or for the horn rules language (bearing in mind there 
is at least one other proposal for part of the latter)?

Dave

Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 08:13:58 UTC