Re: (ISSUE-40) Builtins and logic functions in BLD

Michael Kifer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I made a proposal that we should treat builtins using the same mechanism as
>>>>>modules. [...]
>>
>>>Dave Raynolds wrote:
>>>
>>>>Isn't the URI enough to avoid clashes?
>>
>>Why do you need more than that to identify built-ins?
> 
> I do not. (see the quoted text below)

So, does somebody object to external functions being identified by their 
type (rif:iri) and IRI?

E.g. the Uniterm used to represent a call to the XPath fn:dateTime 
function would have as its "op" the following "Const" (if I got it right):

http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions/#dateTime^^rif:iri

(or, in XML:
<op>
   <Const type="rif:iri">
      http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions/#dateTime
   </Const>
</op>
<arg>...</arg>)

Btw, does it follows that, if a function name's type if rif:local, the 
function is a logical function?

And can a function whose name's type is rif:iri be a logical function? 
Why would one want to use an IRI instead of a local name?

>>>But, on the other hand, the same builtin may be defined by different
>>>libraries, and the module system may open a way to use different libraries.
>>
>>Are you talking about different implementations of the same built-in? 
>>Here again, if we are talking about RIF-BLD built-ins, isn't that out of 
>>scope?
> 
> Why is it out of scope? This kind of considerations are a fair game.
> I am not saying that this is what I would push, but this kind of
> extensibility is not a bad idea.

Well, whether and how to point to an implementation of an external 
function is metadata, so, it is at least out of the scope of a 
resolution fo issue 40...

Christian

Received on Monday, 3 December 2007 16:30:26 UTC