Re: where to hang the metadata?

> > Facts that need metadata can be wrapped with Group.
> 
> They can, but that misses the point.

Which is?

> > Having metadata on all objects will make the presentation syntax horrible
> > and is an overkill in my view.
> 
> Then leave the metadata out of the presentation syntax, since it has no
> effect on the semantics anyway (and the presentation syntax is nominally
> just there to help specify the semantics).  I'm only half serious, but
> I do not think this is a good reason to object.

As I said, metadata can have effect on the semantics.
Next, you are also missing the important point (made by Jos) that the only
formal spec of the language is the presentation syntax. So, XML must be
defined by a precise mapping from the presentation syntax (which is how it
is done now).

> If people want to put metadata on something like a constant, they can
> live with it being ugly.

Do you have any evidence for the "want" or "live with"?

> > I am glad that there is FLD to keep us honest :-)
> > And this extra wrapper is just bloat that gives nothing.
> > 
> > All this mess indicates to me that the only good solution is our original
> > proposal to use Group only. All the talk about the first-class existence
> > for rules reminds me medieval disputations about how many devils can fit on
> > a needle point.
> 
> Then can I suggest, perhaps, that you stop arguing about it?

The word "Then" in your reply is a non-sequitur.  I am not the one arguing
about the number of devils. Why are you trying to silence me? 


> To you,
> your original proposal is "the only good one".  To some other people,
> respectfully, other proposals are "the only good one(s)."  Is it the
> best use of our four remaining weeks to keep trying to convince each
> other, or shall we hold our noses, settle on some design that kind of
> stinks, and move on to some of the more important remaining issues?
> The proposed compromise is that you can have <Group>, if you'll let
> other people have <Rule>.

A bad compromise is not always a good solution.


	--michael  


>         -- Sandro
> 
> 
> > 
> > 	--michael  
> > 
> > 
> > > >    2.  Keep the Group element, for making these conceptual groupings
> > > > that,
> > > >        e.g., Michael speaks of (and, e.g., Sandro is familiar with from
> > > >        his rule programming), where metadata apply to a set of rules).
> > > > 
> > > > This works nicely for both BLD and FLD (Forall's CLAUSE becomes
> > > > FORMULA).
> > > 
> > > So the proposed compromise (which Chris also sent the list - we talked
> > > about it on the phone with Christian) is to have both the <Group> and
> > > <Rule> wrappers.  I'd also like metadata everywhere else, too, but I
> > > think I can life with this compromise if everyone else can.
> > > 
> > >         -- Sandro
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -- Harold
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
> > > > On Behalf Of Sandro Hawke
> > > > Sent: April 22, 2008 4:37 PM
> > > > To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
> > > > Subject: where to hang the metadata?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 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?
> > > > 
> > > >        -- Sandro
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
>

Received on Monday, 28 April 2008 16:55:14 UTC