- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 19:10:35 +0000
- To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On 6 Nov 2008, at 19:01, Jos de Bruijn wrote: [snip] >>> In general, I think that this datatype should be based on the XML >>> schema >>> string datatype, and if there are problems with extensibility, they >>> should be solved in XML schema. >> >> It *is* based on XML schema strings. > > No. The string parts of the lexical space and value space are > different. Ooops. I was taking a looser view of "based". >>>> (And the problem is that future changes will change the meaning >>>> of some >>>> ontologies. I presume that this will be true for some RIF >>>> rulesets if >>>> you have the appropriate facets and builtins.) >>> >>> We don't have such problems in RIF, because we don't allow built- >>> ins in >>> rule head. >> >> I fail to see how that matters. You'll get different answers to >> builtins >> so you'll have different rules firing merely depending on the >> admissible >> characters. > > You're right, I forgot about this point. I was focusing too much about > the example in the document. > But, well, there will be future changes in several data types, so I > guess we'll just have to live with that. That's a choice. Another choice is the one Boris would like to make. There are trade offs to both approaches (including what I think of as rather severe implementation consequences of Boris's choice). I just want to make sure we argue the actual (de)merits :) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2008 19:07:45 UTC