- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:40:15 +0200
- To: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
- CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Gary Hallmark wrote: >> >> #10. Section 3.4.1: matching theory. As I explain in [2], it is needed >> to take the semantics of datatypes into account. That is mentionned in >> an editor's note only, out of laziness rather than anything else (and >> also because it relates to the question of application-specific >> background knowledge). >> >> Options: >> 1. keep the editor's note as it is; >> 2. add a paragraph in the text re how it takes into account the >> semantics of data types etc, and leave an editor's note saying that this >> might be extended to take application-specific theories into account >> (such as app-specific object models etc). >> >> I propose that we go by option 1 for the FPWD. > > I wouldn't even talk about application-specific theories until we first > have defined what matching means for the datatypes and builtins in DTB. What matching means is well-defined and nothing specific to PRD: it is only that I did not specify all the details in the draft, out of laziness (and because it is such a well-establised definition). And matching is usually defined wrt an arbitrary matching theory (well, maybe not all definitions call it that way: if you have a prefered definition taht use a different termonilogy, I have nothing against changing). The way out, here, is maybe to copy one standard definition of pattern matching out of a text book, so that it is clear that RIF is just using the standard definition, including wrt matching theories? Cheers, Christian
Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 19:40:20 UTC