- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:06:35 +0000
- To: Hassan Aït-Kaci <hak@ilog.com>
- CC: W3C RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Hassan Aït-Kaci wrote: > Michael Kifer wrote: >> Second, in a complex KB, you always have internal predicates that >> shouldn't >> be visible outside. Why should they be given a URI? > > I agree even more! One detail of momentous importance that seems to escape > anyone envioning a system where *all* identifiers and constants are URIs > is that these are precisely that - *universal*. In other words, they > defeat the concepts of local scoping, hiding, and modularity - something > desirable for any respectable programming idiom. Agreed but as I said in a separate posting, scoping is orthogonal to identifier spelling. For example, in Java my inner class has a fully qualified classname whether or not it is public, protected or even private scope. > Namespaces are a poor-man > way of somehow working around this flatness. Agreed. Has someone suggested that namespaces might be the sole basis for a scoping mechanism for RIF? I doubt it. I assume we'll want notions of, especially variable, scoping which are much richer than that (indeed I don't expect variables to be named by URIs at all). Dave
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2007 15:07:29 UTC