- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 17:34:48 +0200
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Dave Reynolds wrote:
>
> "Nothing in the use case motivates the "XML data" (whatever it means)
> nor "XML types" requirements: their respective applications interchange
> data as XML documents, but that tells us nothing about how they process
> the data they interchange."
>
> Is that really true? Surely the exchange only works if the expressions
> within the exchanged rules which are expressions over data values are
> linked to the XML format in which the data is being exchanged?
>
> Sure the run time processing might be over some arbitrary datastructure
> and the translator needs to translate the data-access parts of the rules
> to match that datastructure. However, as far as the interchange process
> is concerned the rules are specified in terms of some agreed exchange
> data model which seem to be XML in your case (though of course it could
> be RDF :-)).
You are absolutely right. What we need here is, indeed, RIF being able
to reference the place where the vocabulary is defined (an XML schema,
in that case, but could be anything else); and maybe also the data
source, but this is another question. My point is that I am not sure
that this is what the "XML data" requiremnt is about ("RIF must be able
to accept XML elements as data").
Christian
Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 18:31:36 UTC