- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:44:57 -0400
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Igor Mozetic <igor.mozetic@ijs.si>, Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
> Igor Mozetic wrote: > > > > 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. > > This is supposed to be a web based interchange language. If anything > perhaps the short cut should be for rif:iri and the examples should use > curie format IRIs rather than rif:local unless there is a compelling > reason for them to be local. I think that in most cases people will actually use rif^^local. Also, the presentation syntax is for *our* examples. It is not a concrete syntax. So, the concern should be that our documents will look nice. --michael
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2007 16:45:36 UTC