Re: local names

> If you use symbols from the sort iri then you have a global constant. If
> you use constants from some other sort (e.g., string or we might introduce
> a separate sort for that) then they are local names.
> Where do you see a problem?

> > Actually, I'm inclined to put this subject on hold until we're farther
> > along with concrete examples of RIF usage.  Once we have some working
> > RIF examples, it should be easy enough to see what difference it makes
> > to toggle some names between global and local.

Just that -- what differences will users see?  Imagine someone
developing a ruleset, and for the sake or argument assume they are
writing directly in RIF Core.  Now, there are some situations in which
they have to decide whether to use an IRI, a local name, or (perhaps) an
existentially quantified variable.  What factors should they take into
account in making their decision?  What possible impact might their
decision have?  

Or, to approach that a little differently, give me two small example
rulesets -- one which uses local names and one which use global names
(IRIs) -- which are good examples of when one should use one vs the
other.   (A third one, with exivars in it, assuming we added them at the
ruleset scope, might be good, too.)

I guess use whatever syntax you like (if you want to get into this now).

My sense is that one uses local names and exivars much like pronouns in
natural language, but that doesn't fit with the claim that local names
are rigid designators.

     -- Sandro

Received on Sunday, 29 April 2007 23:44:49 UTC