- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:53:27 -0400
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- 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 Of course it is related. This is a data type for constants that we would like to reserve for Web pointers. As I explained, sorting implies some additional syntax. In your case the syntax should include some universal naming schema (IRIs) for the elements of that data type. --michael
Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 15:04:43 UTC