- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:12:50 +0100
- To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
- CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Michael Kifer wrote: > > You are proposing to treat element names as classes and element instances as > member objects. But in XML (Schema, not DTD), the same element name can be used > to represent different things at different levels. For instance, Name can be an > element that describes people's names, company names, pet names. They all have > different structure, and they can appear at different levels of nesting. > So it does not make a good sense to just write ?x#ex:Name. </chair> Yes. I have thought of that, too. I concluded that, if your schema is done like that, then those elements/element names are unlikely to represent classes; and your rules are unlikely to test objects for membership in such non-classes; so, the rules will rather navigate the structure using the "child" relationships between elements, and thus the frames, starting from a higher level element as class, or even no class characterisation at all, like: forall ?x ?y ?z, ?x[ex:name->?y] AND ?x[CEO->?z]AND ?z[ex:name->johnDoe]... But, again, this is just a draft proposal: it can certainly be improved a thousand way, if it looks like it is worth it... Cheers, Christian <chair>
Received on Monday, 16 March 2009 20:13:44 UTC