- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:02:11 -0400
- To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Cc: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:12:50 +0100 Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr> wrote: > 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; I am not sure this is a good assumption. It feels wrong to me. The different instances of Name in my example are just different classes. I may chose to use the same name "because I can" (pardon my plagiarizing of Bill Clinton :-). > 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]... Well, then maybe a better way would be to just provide a builtin method, which would take an XPath expression and return? (We do allow function symbols in Core, if they are used as built-ins.) > But, again, this is just a draft proposal: it can certainly be improved a > thousand way, if it looks like it is worth it... It might be, if it can be worked out elegantly. Gary's proposal, on the other hand, is a sure thing, but it is a brute-force approach. We have something very similar to that in FLORA-2. I find it a bit too low-level, but it is usable. --michael
Received on Monday, 16 March 2009 21:02:47 UTC