- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:32:32 +0100
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- CC: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Michael Kifer wrote: >> Michael Kifer wrote: >> >>>> In any case we need IRIs for the relation and function symbols >>>> irrespective of sorting. >>> No, this is the first step in adding sorts. >> No, surely it's the first step in webizing[*] a language. >> >> Dave > > You can put it this way, but IRIs and other data types are nicely > formalized as sorts. So, this is the most natural way to approach these > issues (incl. webizing). I thought it was clear, but if not I hope that > this discussion clears things up. No sorry, it doesn't. This seems to confuse IRI's in the sense of datatypes (i.e. things like RDF Resources and xsd:anyURI, which would fit with the phrase "other data types") with the question of the syntax of the language. I could be expressing rules that have absolutely nothing to do with web URLs, RDF or any of that junk but I still want my symbols to have some universal naming scheme. So that when someone takes two rule sets from different locations they have some means to notice that functions/relations/constants referenced in those rulesets are supposed to be the same. To me that is a syntax issue unrelated to datatypes. Dave
Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 14:32:59 UTC