- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 09:06:17 +0000
- To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- CC: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Jos de Bruijn wrote: > > Axel Polleres wrote: >> p.s.: I also removed the now obsolete predicate hasDatatype, which was >> the "predecessor" of >> >> isLiteralOfType >> and >> isLiteralNotOfType >> >> and added the respective examples and Editor's notes now under >> isLiteralOfType. >> >> Two more questions open: >> >> 1) I thought whether we also need: >> >> IsLiteral, IsNotLiteral >> >> While the former can be easily emulated by: idLiteralOfType (l ?X ), >> just leaving the variable free, especially the latter might be useful? >> Opinions? > > IsNotLiteral(?x) or isLiteralNotOfType(?x, int) > > is equivalent to > > isNotInteger(?x) > > And so, we would bring disjunction back into the language if we were to > include IsNotLiteral. makes sense... let's leave it out then, iiiih. cheers, Axel >> 2) Naming convention... I know we had agreed on isLiteralOfType and >> isLiteralNotOfType in the teleconf., but now, in the light of drafting >> >> literal-equal and literal-not-equal >> >> I ask myself which naming convention to stick to: >> >> CamelCase or dash-separated ? >> >> best, >> Axel >> >> >> >> Jos de Bruijn wrote: >>> <snip/> >>> >>>>>> Note (also an editor's note in the document): >>>>>> I assumed the second argument of isLiteralOfType to be a rif:iri >>>>>> at the >>>>>> moment. As we defined a datatype identifier just as a unicode string >>>>>> representing an IRI in the definition of symbol spaces, it might be >>>>>> better to restrict the domain of the second argument to strings, yes? >>>>> I disagree. A rif:iri constant can denote an actual datatype, so you >>>>> can >>>>> speak about actual datatypes when speaking about the types of literals. >>>> This is what we say so far: >>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DTB#Symbol_Spaces >>>> >>>> "The identifier of a symbol space is a sequence of Unicode characters >>>> that form an absolute IRI." >>>> >>>> It is not an IRI constant, although the current definitions of >>>> isLiteralOfType and isLiteralNotOfType talk about IRI constants as the >>>> second argument. >>> that's fine. >>> >>>> I am happy with either keeping it like that or changing it, just wanted >>>> to point out that there are two options. >>>> >>>> >>>>> In fact, it would have been best if in BLD semantic structures the IRIs >>>>> of datatypes are mapped to the corresponding datatypes, e.g., >>>>> xsd:string >>>>> is mapped to the XML schema string datatype. One could then, in DTB, >>>>> speak only about values and datatypes, which will be much more >>>>> convenient and much more elegant. >>>> I am not sure what you want to say here, can you explain/maybe >>>> illustrate with an example? >>> I propose to extend the definition of semantic structure [1] by adding >>> the following conditions to point 1 of the definition: >>> - If a constant c \in Const is an IRI constant "d"^^rif:iri and d is a >>> datatype identifier, i.e., d \in DTS, then I_C(d) is the datatype [2] >>> identified by d. >>> >>> Thinking again about this, we might get away with this change without >>> redoing last call. The only real implication it has is that equality >>> statements of the form >>> >>> xsd:integer=xsd:string >>> >>> are currently not inconsistent, but with the proposed change they do >>> become inconsistent. >>> But we anyway don't want people to write this kind of statement; in >>> fact, people should not use datatype identifiers outside of constants >>> and isLiteralOfType/isLiteralNotOfType statements. >>> >>> Best, Jos >>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#Semantic_Structures >>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Axel >>>> >>>>> We should not have moved BLD to last call before finalizing DTB :-( >>>>> I now think we should probably redo BLD last call, after finalizing >>>>> DTB. >>>>> >>>>>> Moreover, I think by dropping the specific guard predicates, we can >>>>>> get >>>>>> rid of the definition of short names for symbol spaces as well. >>>>> Yes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best, Jos >>>>> >>>>>> Axel >>>>>> >> > -- Dr. Axel Polleres Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, Galway email: axel.polleres@deri.org url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2009 09:07:04 UTC