- From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:07:27 +0200
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <480F50AF.2000901@inf.unibz.it>
> Thinking over today's difficult discussion about metadata, it seems to
> me that the right solution is this:
>
> 1. Allow metadata, syntactically, on every object, by way of a
> <meta> child element which is legal on every capitalized (class)
> element. No need for wrapper elements. In a normal rule, the
> "Forall" is where you'd hang the metadata. I have some ideas for
> the PS, but no favorites.
>
> 2. Add a "group" element, for making these conceptual groupings that
> Michael speaks of (and I'm familiar with from my own rule
> programming), where the metadata applies to a set of a few
> rules).
>
> What about this approach would be so bad?
For me the question was not how to attach metadata, but rather whether
and how to identify rules.
For a long time our top-level element in RIF was the ruleset and the
second-level element was the rule.
Recently the notion of "group" was introduced, which lies between the
ruleset and the rule: a ruleset contains groups and groups contain rules.
So, we have:
Ruleset
|
Group
|
Rule
I myself do not really see the need for this group element in BLD, but I
do not strongly object to it.
The current draft of BLD allows identifying rule sets and groups, but
not rules. I was arguing that it should be possible to identify rules.
Best, Jos
>
> -- Sandro
>
--
Jos de Bruijn debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224 http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
Only two things are infinite, the universe and
human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the
former.
-- Albert Einstein
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2008 15:07:57 UTC