- 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