- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:59:51 +0000
- To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
- CC: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Michael Kifer wrote: > > > On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:44:17 +0100 > Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr> wrote: > >> *PROPOSED:* Change all negative guards to return true only for literals that are not of the type, false for non-literals (closing ISSUE-79 [6]). >> *PROPOSED:* add isLiteralOfType and isLiteralNotOfType (based on resolution of issue-79) and remove specific type-named guards (e.g. isInteger, isNotInteger). > > Proposal 2 seems to obviate proposal 1. agreed... > Proposal 1 has a problem of naming. If we use names like isNotInteger then > semantics in Prop 1 clashes with the mnemonic meaning of such a negative > guard. (A more accurate mnemonic would be isLiteralThatIsNotInteger). Proposal > 2 does not seem to suffer from that problem. ... yes, I also think if we just get going with proposal 2 we avoid that and other "maintainance" problems with the specific guards. p.s.: Note that we need to also check the affected test cases that use guards, i.e. replace or remove them. best, 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, 6 January 2009 14:00:31 UTC