Re: read BLD draft for f2f

> >> 8. In section 4.2.1 the mapping of plain literals with a language tag 
> >> talks about replacing occurrences of "@" with "@@". I would prefer that 
> >> we have a separate representation of text in the concrete syntax and 
> >> avoid such mangling or simply avoid the concrete syntax altogether. If 
> >> we stick to the current concrete syntax then (editorial) it should be 
> >> made clearer that that transformation is an artifact of the concrete 
> >> syntax and not relevant to the XML encoding or to any actual RIF processor.
> > 
> > I do not see how we can get rid of the presentation syntax. This means that
> > we either give no examples or we use abstract or XML syntax. The latter two
> > options mean that mere mortals, like me, will not be able to write it our
> > understand it without undue effort.
> 
> I was actually referring to the details of the current presentation 
> syntax rather than its existence.
> 
> We already have short form presentation syntaxes for several primitive 
> literal types so having a custom presentation for text, e.g. 
> 'lexical'@lang, seems reasonable to me and avoids encoding the lang as 
> part of the lexical form.

This has two problems. First, we have a uniform syntax for all data types,
which is "..."^^type, and I see no reason to break this. This ('lexical'@lang)
*could* be considered a shorthand for "lexical@lang"^^text, but then it
does not avoid the encoding problem.

The second problem is that the @ idiom is better reserved for references to
knowledge defined in other modules, e.g., p(?X)@mofulefoo.

If encoding is a problem (I do not see why it is. After all, we still need
to encode the " and the \) then we could use this syntax:
"literal"^^string(lang) (or text(lang)).


	--michael  

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

Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 00:59:14 UTC