Re: Presentation Syntax

Axel,
pls see my earlier response to Sandro.
I believe that all these proposals are leading the group astray and causing us
to loose sight of what RIF is about. To me, RIF is not BLD and not PRD, but a
framework for dialects. BLD, IMO, is mostly useless. I see the future of RIF in
dialects that extend BLD. You are proposing to introduce completely useless
(IMO) bloat into what is supposed to be a framework for exchanging concrete
languages.

michael


On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:35:09 +0000
Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote:

> Michael Kifer wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:44:10 +0000
> > Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> Michael Kifer wrote:
> >>> I think the origin of this thread was your proposal to use triples {a b c}
> >>> instead of frames. This is unacceptable because frames are not triples.
> >> SWC defines them as corresponding [2]:
> >>
> >> "This means that whenever a triple s p o is satisfied, the corresponding 
> >> RIF frame formula s'[p' -> o'] is satisfied, and vice versa[...]where 
> >> s', p', and o' are RIF symbols corresponding to the RDF symbols s, p, 
> >> and o, respectively."
> > 
> > I am saying: frames are not triples, but triples are frames.
> 
> That's ok.
> 
> >>> You can have a[b->c d->e] etc.
> >> That is not a problem, in PS I would likewise suggest to allow not only 
> >> frame style but also turtle style abbreviations, cf. [1] i.e.
> >>
> >> { a b c; d e } etc.
> > 
> > Hmm. You don't expect me to like that, do you?
> 
> There are many people who do like and regularly use that.
> 
> >>> Second, {...} is not a good syntax because it means sets. 
> >> not in RIF. From that point of view, one could equally argue "[...] is 
> >> not a good syntax because it means array or lists". So, again, I don't 
> >> see the problem.
> > 
> > Set notation is fundamental, and there has been demand for that in use case
> > examples. I didn't introduce that before because originally the
> > presentation syntax was supposed to be abstract syntax. But now when we are
> > moving towards a concrete syntax this is on the agenda. Aggregates are
> > definitely on the agenda even if the set syntax won't make it.
> > 
> >>> This is what I was
> >>> planning to use for aggregates (I proposed this several months ago in an email)
> >>> and for shorthands like  a[b->c b->d] == a[b-> {c d}]
> >> I do not see this approved anywhere, as of yet.
> > 
> > See above.
> > 
> >> Alternatively, I suggest 
> >> for that case to use the Turtle style abbreviation [1] using commata for 
> >> separating multiple values, i.e.
> >>
> >>    { a b c, d }
> >>
> >> or, in  frame style:
> >>
> >>    a[b-> c, d]
> >>
> >> My preferences is compatibility among W3C promoted languages (RIF, RDF, 
> >> SPARQL).
> > 
> > This is doomed to failure and is a waste of time.
> 
> Well, we are already there: it needs no time at all, if we just accept 
> Turtle style patterns in { ... } as a notation for conjunctions of 
> frames. So, no additional time needed, and no time wasted.
> 
> >> FWIW, I don not necessarily propose to *replace* frames, but to 
> >>   allow Triple/Turtle style syntax alternatively at lease for the sake 
> >> of this aimed compatibility. Would that be acceptable for you?
> > 
> > No. Why duplicate and complicate?
> 
> It does not complicate anything in my opinion, and it is a reasonable 
> alternative to frames style syntax with - for a W3C WG in the Semantic 
> Web activity - a significant community behind.
> 
> >>   The SW community is becoming very used to this kind of syntax and a 
> >> compatible PS would certainly be appreciated from that side.
> >>
> >> BTW, I would actually not expect too many people wanting to mix Turtle 
> >> style and frame style syntax in the same PS document...
> > 
> > Don't forget that RIF is an exchange syntax despite all the talk about the
> > presentation syntax. If you want to use turtle syntax then use Turtle syntax
> > and translate it to (XML) RIF.
> 
> Just to clarify: Turtle is not a rules language, but it can model the 
> part covering conjunctions of frames/triples.
> 
> best,
> Axel
> 
> > cheers
> > michael
> > 
> > 
> >> best,
> >> Axel
> >>
> >> 1. http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/#sec-tutorial, Section 2.3.
> >> 2. http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#RDF_Compatibility, Section 3
> >>> michael
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:23:12 +0000
> >>> Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Sandro Hawke wrote:
> >>>>> Talking after the call today, Axel made a good case for adopting the
> >>>>> other solution to the infix-operators problem, namely to pay attention
> >>>>> to whether there is a space between the "f" and the "(" in "f(x)".  So
> >>>>> "f (x)" is two terms, and "f(x)" is one term.  This is my own
> >>>>> preference, and what I implemented before the task force telecon (where
> >>>>> I got talked out of it).  One of Axel's considerations is alignment with
> >>>>> SPARQL and other RDF-related languages, in user training materials.  If
> >>>>> we go with this kind of space-sensitivity, then we can have both the
> >>>>> F-Logic and N3 styles available for expressing triples, so you can write
> >>>>> your exampes in either one.  And you can use commas if you want, but you
> >>>>> can also leave them out.  This means my parser should be able to handle
> >>>>> all the existing examples and test cases... a pretty big win, really.
> >>>>> The one thing people can't do is write "f (x)" when they mean "f(x)".
> >>>>>
> >>>>>      -- Sandro
> >>>> In that context, note that in the proposed PS we hav space-sensitivity 
> >>>> already anyways, for the '-' operator vs. dashes within IRIs. So, I 
> >>>> think that additional space-sensitivity would be totally acceptable.
> >>>>
> >>>> Axel
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 12 March 2009 18:45:17 UTC