Re: Datamodel Strawman (ACTION-298)

> Michael Kifer wrote:
> 
> > Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr> wrote:
> > 
> >>>As I understand it, there are basically two places where we may need 
> >>>the reference to an external, or application data model:
> >>>
> >>>1. when specifying the type of a variable beyond the builtin types 
> >>>(and of a slot if we decide that RIF should allow type checking);
> > 
> > Typed variables is a step that requires either sorts or a RIF data model
> > (at least the classification terms introduced in the current document).
> 
> I do not understand that: why cannot be the data model external to RIF 
> (e.g., an uder-defined object model) and imported by reference?

This may have become clearer after the discussion at today's telecon.
Basically, to utilize an external data model we need to have "proxy"
concepts for the data modeling concepts of the external model.
And to make the exchange possible, these proxy concepts must be
standard in RIF in some sense.


	--michael  

> In that case, RIF does not need the classification term (the external 
> data model does).
> 
> >>>As regards case 1, I suppose that a QName is all we need (in addition 
> >>>to  the metadata that will tell us what this ruleset requires, e.g. a 
> >>>data model represented by an XML schema, the URI of that schema etc).
> > 
> > I do not understand that.
> 
> If you import the datamodel by reference, you will need to specify the 
> IRI of the, possibly multiple, data models that your rules use; then, 
> you will declare the type of a variable (or constant if needed) relative 
> to those IRIs. (like Dave does for ConstDs in [1]).
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jul/0118.html
> 
> > I do not understand in your example, below, why do you need typed variables.
> > (I understand why they might be needed, but I do not see it in your example.)
> 
> It is need for the purpose of rule interchange, that is, to allow the 
> receiving part to translate back the rule into its own rule language, 
> given its sown pecific mapping between the MISMO schema and the data 
> model used by its own rule language.
> 
> Does that make my point any clearer?
> 
> Christian
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2007 16:36:38 UTC