Re: [BLD] My comments on version dated 5/10

Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
> 
> Michael Kifer wrote:
> 
>>> Am I the only one in the group to think that normal forms can make 
>>> the life of implementors easier?
>>
>> Easier? They'll make the life harder! Instead of a straightforward
>> translation they will force the implementors to recognize non-normal 
>> forms
>> and do translation.
> 
> Hmmm... There might be a misunderstanding, here: what I say is that, if 
> RIF specifies a normal form, we can have a level of compliance where 
> only the recognition of normal forms is required. That might make 
> implementation easier.
> 
> But I agree that, as I already pointed in my previous emails, the 
> downside is that it would probably require such implementations to 
> publish only normal forms, which might make implementation more complex. 
> Although most actual rule languages have probably more expressive power 
> than RIF basics, and will have to do some recognition and transformation 
> anyway; but, well...
> 
> And so, I have no decisive opinion either way: I was just wondering if 
> this is something we should discuss.
> 
> But I do not seem to get much echo, which probably means that the answer 
> is: no, this is not something we should bother about. And that we should 
> probably just end the subject here.
> 
> If somebody disagrees and thinks that we should raise an issue; please 
> speak up now or shut up forever! :-)

Sorry, I haven't followed what the specific test cases are that you are 
talking about.

In general having a single normal form is a substantial simplification 
for implementers. The fact that the same set of triples can be 
serialized so many different ways in RDF/XML is a barrier to uptake. In 
practice it means that translators have to support multiple "normal 
forms" for output too. It is also a significant support headache (a 
rather more significant cost than software implementation).

So in general I would advocate having a small number of normal forms. 
However, not having followed the details I don't feel strongly enough to 
raise it as an issue.

Dave
-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office:
Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

Received on Friday, 12 October 2007 16:15:48 UTC