Re: Any proposals for a Concise RIF XML Syntax?

I also had a suggestion, which boiled down to this:

1. start with fully striped
2. when the Class stripe is uniquely determined by its enclosing 
property stripe, then omit the Class stripe.

XML Schema provides the "complexType" construct to implement #2
This is similar in strongly typed OO languages like java -- One declares 
the class information, e.g

Class C1 { C2 c2; }
Class C2 { C3 c3; }

Then one constructs references such as c1.c2.c3, not c1.C1.c2.C2.c3.C3. 

Sandro Hawke wrote:
> Occasionally people talk about making the XML syntax for RIF more terse
> and easy to read by humans.   I remember Jos and Hassan saying things in
> this direction fairly recently.
>
> A long time ago we went through a suggestion I had for this -- I
> proposed some rules for when you could skip a stripe as redundant -- but
> we decided against that (with me concurring).
>
> I wonder if there are any other proposals for a concise RIF XML syntax?
> If so, they'd need to come forward very very soon.  (Some would say it's
> too late already, but...  *shrug*)
>
> I started a table where one could do an ad hoc version of this:
>     http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD_Syntax_Table
>
> Please edit at will, with comments here, if this is something you're
> interested in.
>
>      -- Sandro
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/01/30-rif-minutes.html
>     http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Arch/XML_Syntax_Issues_1
>
>

Received on Saturday, 17 May 2008 06:07:53 UTC