- From: Igor Mozetic <igor.mozetic@ijs.si>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:44:27 +0200
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- CC: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Michael Kifer wrote: >> 2- section "signatures and a condition language of RIF^BLD^": the >> definition of equality atoms is not entirely clear: the symbol = is not >> a constant symbol in RIF, according to the syntax definition in section >> "presentation syntax" (it does not have the symbol space). Furthermore, >> as it is correctly mentioned that equality is not a built-in predicates, >> I feel there is an impedance mismatch between this predicate symbol and >> all other kinds of predicate symbols. Finally, equality is currently >> not mentioned when atomic formulas are initially defined. Therefore, I >> would propose to define equality atoms a=b directly when first defining >> atomic formulas. > > A good point! You were looking at a version before I moved = further down, > but the point about its symbol space is well-taken. It should be either > rif:local (my pref) or rif:iri. > > I experimented with requiring all symbols to have explicit symbol spaces in > the examples, but I think they become unsightly due to that. Perhaps we > should not require ^^rif:local explicitly. Then we could write a=b as > before. If people think that we should insist on explicit symbol space > names (as it is done now, to make the syntax look more abstract and devoid > of syntactic sugar) then I am fine with writing a =^^rif:local b or even > equal^^rif:local(a,b). > I would prefer to drop explicit ^^rif:local. Otherwise, the presentation syntax becomes really difficult to read. Regards, Igor
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2007 09:44:43 UTC