Re: [DTB] Most editor's notes addressed

Jos de Bruijn wrote:
> <snip/>
> 
>>>>> If I use BLD with non-strict conformance, and decide I want to use the
>>>>> xsd:int datatype, am I using BLD or am I using a dialect? Is this
>>>>> dialect a W3C dialect or a third-party dialect?
>>>>> And suppose now that I want to use a guard predicate. Does the above
>>>>> text or does the above text not allow me to use the name pred:isInt?
>>
>>> I would be very interested in your response to my questions....
>> Ok:
>> it does not, for your own dialect, it does if it is a W3C endorsed
>> dialect. (and: no, I do not have a formal definition of "W3C endorsed
>> dialect" in mind yet, and yes "it should be discussed again.")
> 
> You did not answer my first and my second question. And could you please
> include an editor's note so that we can track the issue?

done.

> <snip/>
> 
>> I was hoping we could get BLD a usable rules language for RDF,
>> compatible with SPARQL. (And similar problems will arise if we pursue to
>> suggest RIF to the RDB2RDF people: If we as a working group approach
>> them and say: look at RIF, we should then not be in the position that,
>> if they agree to do so, having to answer them: "BUT, BTW RIF doesn't
>> work for that, you need to do your own dialect from scratch, your
>> problem...")
>>
>> I see some very fundamental issues here.
> 
> I would be very interested to see whether there are any features
> required by RDB2RDF that are not provided by RIF.

I have no concrete example as of now, but my rationale is: if we run 
into troubles with SPARQL, we might also run into troubles with SQL, 
since they share many underlying assumptions.


Axel

> <snip/>


-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, 
Galway
email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/

Received on Friday, 14 November 2008 10:54:10 UTC