Re: [RIF] homework for 10/17 telecon

On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 09:39 -0400, Michael Kifer wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Yes, you are right. The original syntax had IRIs, but several weeks ago
> there was a decision at a telecon to first specify an unsorted logic.

Was that a WG decision, or just advice to the editors? If it was
a WG decision, I'd appreciate a pointer to the record.

> Data types (IRIs being one of them) will be later introduced as sorts.

I don't understand how sorted/unsorted is relevant to the syntax
of identifiers.

I see...

"In the present version, variables are not sorted and thus can range
over all constants, Data or Ind."
 -- http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/A.1_Basis%
253A_Positive_Conditions

Dave, I suggest that <Ind> is what you're after if you want to
use URIs for names. I find it a little awkward that not all names
are URIs, but I can perhaps live with that; I'll probably treat
the non-uri names as local fragment identifiers or something.

The constant "$49" is just a string, as far as I can tell
from Harold's explanation of Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:29:51 -0400 .
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Oct/0044.html

As to URIs for functions or relations, I'm not sure; so far,
I have only found a need for URIs as constant symbols.

> You should realize that this is just a first step. There are many more
> details to be worked out, such as builtins, data types, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 	regards
> 	  --michael  
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 14:03:25 UTC