- From: Boley, Harold <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 07:59:43 -0500
- To: "Christian de Sainte Marie" <csma@ilog.fr>, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
For an Interchange Format, fully striped syntax carries too much baggage that can be easily reconstructed by a 'stripe expander'. In http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/CORE/Conditions/Positive the stripe-skipped Example 2 (XSDizing $49 is a different issue) <And> <Exists> <Var>Buyer</Var> <Atom> <Con>purchase</Con> <Var>Buyer</Var> <Var>Seller</Var> <Expr> <Con>book</Con> <Var>Author</Var> <Con>LeRif</Con> </Expr> <Con>$49</Con> </Atom> </Exists> <Equal> <Var>Seller</Var> <Var>Author</Var> </Equal> </And> can be easily expanded, on demand, to a fully striped <And> <formula> <Exists> <declare><Var>Buyer</Var></declare> <formula> <Atom> <op><Con>purchase</Con></op> <arg index="1"><Var>Buyer</Var></arg> <arg index="2"><Var>Seller</Var></arg> <arg index="3"> <Expr> <op><Con>book</Con></op> <arg index="1"><Var>Author</Var></arg> <arg index="2"><Con>LeRif</Con></arg> </Expr> </arg> <arg index="4"><Con>$49</Con></arg> </Atom> </formula> </Exists> </formula> <formula> <Equal> <lhs><Var>Seller</Var></lhs> <rhs><Var>Author</Var></rhs> </Equal> </formula> </And> -- Harold -----Original Message----- From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Christian de Sainte Marie Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 8:19 AM To: Sandro Hawke Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org Subject: Re: Approaching an XML syntax for RIF Sandro Hawke wrote: > > The idea of stripe-skipping is to say that we can omit certain > XML elements -- skipping directly to their child elements -- because > they carry only redundant information. What is the benefit of stripe-skipping? I agree with Dave: this seems to put forward and backward compatibility, whereas the whole idea is to make extending dialects in a forward/backward compatible way easy. In addition, it makes deriving the XML syntax from the abstract one more complex. Christian
Received on Tuesday, 30 January 2007 12:59:52 UTC