- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:19:57 +0100
- To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
- CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Michael Kifer wrote: > > It is not clear to me whether you want this syntax to be in Core or just in > PRD. If the latter then things would be vastly simpler. My understanding was that anything with a cardinality constraint would be a problem for Core. So, I drafted this proposal with PRD only in mind (hence the description of the PRD2Core fallback). But Gary just convinced me that I had to rework that proposal to separate clearly the introduction of a cardinality constraint and that of a path expression. I am not convinced that I will end up proposing a different construct (as I believe this is what PRD needs), but I am convinced that it would make the definition semantically clearer. But, of course, there is a clear possibility that reworking my proposal in that direction will be an illuminating experience, and that I will come up with a different set of constructs, some of which may make sense in Core :-) Christian
Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2009 19:20:48 UTC