- From: Boley, Harold <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:51:15 -0400
- To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> > . . . > > > > > 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? It's the 'vanilla' case (in our own namespace), which we can then 'flavor' (with other namespaces). > > > > > > ... 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? Yes, RIF/XML has more direct XML support than RIF/RDF/XML. > > 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.) One example is that RDF/XML does not support perfect XSD validation before first also fixing an RDF Schema. -- Harold
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2007 14:51:48 UTC