- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 16:11:16 +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: >>>> 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 Using a URI as a means of unambiguously naming a relation or function symbol is nothing to do with whether there is a datatype for web pointers. Dave
Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 15:13:40 UTC