- From: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
- Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 18:57:15 +0200
- To: "'Dave Reynolds'" <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "'W3C RIF WG'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> > I had pointed to this incompleteness problem of the syntax
> > definition in my message [1], but nobody has shared my
> > concern, and my message was more or less ignored.
>
> I think it was pretty clear at the f2f and the lead up
> meetings that we did not have an agreed or complete
> XML syntax and that what went in WD1 was at best a place
> holder. There were lots of words in WD1 about the
> highly provisional nature of the syntax.
I didn't refer to the XML syntax, but to the last
sentence in Gary's complaint:
I think it's pretty easy to guess about the
primitive sorts from the examples, but the
arrow sorts and boolean sorts really need
to have ASN.
In my message I said
We should make explicit that the elements of
"Const" may be data literals, object names,
function names or predicate names.
Even if we allow complete symbol overlap for them,
it's not sufficient to define just the class Const
as their common pool in the abstrat syntax, but we
also need to include specific subclasses for
individual names (data literals and object names),
function names and predicate names.
-Gerd
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Mar/0029.html
Received on Friday, 11 May 2007 16:57:27 UTC