- From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:58:01 +0200
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu, public-rif-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <49F1C569.2060501@inf.unibz.it>
<snip/> >> Anyway, back on lists, which option shall we go with: >> >> 1. This is just a user-education issue. Highlight the above test >> case as an example in the spec. >> >> 2. Require that list elements be Consts. (And say that Lists are >> Consts; give them a lexical space.) >> >> 3. Option 2, but only for Core. Somehow enable this Const >> requirement to be relaxed in extension. This would probably be >> my option, except that I don't know how to do it, which leaves >> me preferring option 1. >> >> 4. ... something more clever? > > I am thinking of a variant of 3. You can only really talk about > built-ins when talking about concrete values, so I think it makes sense > to define the list built-ins only for concrete values. The truth value > of built-ins would simply be undefined if you introduce lists that > contain elements that are not data values. Thinking about this again, I think that option 3 would diminish the usefulness of RIF lists in Core; for example, you cannot use them for processing RDF lists. Let's get rid of index-of and other problematic built-in(s) in Core! Jos > > In BLD and beyond you can simply use lists with variables to do whatever > processing you want. > > > Best, Jos > >> ? >> >> -- Sandro >> > -- +43 1 58801 18470 debruijn@inf.unibz.it Jos de Bruijn, http://www.debruijn.net/ ---------------------------------------------- Many would be cowards if they had courage enough. - Thomas Fuller
Received on Friday, 24 April 2009 13:58:45 UTC