- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:08:03 +0000
- To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, kifer@cs.sunysb.edu, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On 17 Mar 2009, at 12:51, Christian de Sainte Marie wrote: > Hi Bijan, > > Bijan Parsia wrote: >>>>> 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. >> And, in fact, they can have different named types associated with >> them as well. > > > </chair> > > Well, it is the easy case, when they have different named type, > because you can select them by type name, instead of by element name. I'm just saying that every element (in a context) has a type, named or otherwise. I think it's a little dangerous to conflate element/ type/class. >>> 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 :-). >> And since they can, in fact, have different named types >> associated with them reinforces your point. > > I do not understand how the different named types reinforce > Michael's point; but that's maybe not so important, since Michael's > point might be beside the point, anyway (see my reply to Michael [1]) No idea. >> I was just wondering about the status of groups and substitution >> groups in this proposal. > > > I am confused: isn't that clear from the proposal (section 3.4)? > > Cheers, > > Christian > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/ > 0087.html Er...that had no 3.4. Oh, I finally got to it :) Thanks! Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 14:04:27 UTC