- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:08:17 -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: > >>>> 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. A function or a predicate also belongs to a sort. A data type is just one of the sorts. --michael
Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 16:24:12 UTC