RE: XML Syntax Strawman (ACTION-309)

"Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> writes:
> . . .
> 
> > I was under the impression that the Horn RIF dialect would include the
> > ability to express some literal data values (which requires xs) and
> some
> > xpath/xquuery functions and operators (which requires fn).  Am I
> wrong?
> 
> Right, but *pure* Horn operates over a domain of individuals only, so
> only needs the rif namespace.

Why do I care about "pure Horn"?   I think we only care about RIF
dialects, don't we?

> 
> > > ... RIF should have its own root, rif:RIF,
> > > e.g. as in:
> > >=20
> > > <rif:RIF>
> > >   <top><Ruleset>...</Ruleset></top>
> > >   . . .
> > >   <top><Ruleset>...</Ruleset></top>
> > >   . . .
> > >   <top>further top-level RIF object</top>
> > >   . . .
> > >   <top>further top-level RIF object</top>
> > > </rif:RIF>
> >
> > Why?   What does that do for us that rdf:RDF does not do?
> 
> rif:RIF <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Specification>
> has its own namespace to support various kinds of rules including
> Production Rules, which need their native XML serialization for
> optimal XML-industry-strength rule interoperability.

You think rif:RIF will support XSLT, XQuery, etc, better than rdf:RDF?  

Can you give me an example of how this might be so, other than support
for xsi:type?   (I'm still working on that one, and I'll grant that it
might turn out to be compelling.)

    -- Sandro

Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2007 14:32:34 UTC