- From: Boley, Harold <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
- Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 21:58:25 -0500
- To: "'public-rif-wg@w3.org'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <AD9009DD1B046F4ABBB3E3541D9323FE06AA8B023A@NRCCENMB3.nrc.ca>
Christian and All,
This is for preparing the answer to Thomas Krekeler's question:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-dev/2010Sep/0000.html
in RIF dev (I subscribed to that list recently).
Christian, you have started this preparation in the RIF dev list:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-dev/2010Sep/0002.html
I suggest to move this and other answer preparations here
(e.g., also for Paul Gearon's "Relative IRIs and literals" question:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-dev/2010Nov/0000.html).
Maybe, we should also give a hint about the foci of discussion in
RIF dev vs. RIF comments.
I agree to tell TK that the empty args element must be omitted in
RIF/XML and that this will be made explicit in the next version of the
specs.
I propose the below changes in BLD.
Analogous clarifications should then also be done in FLD
(besides explanations of the ranges of the subscripts).
Harold
BLD:
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#Mapping_of_the_Condition_Language
Split off table rows for empty args for clarity:
column 1 (new):
pred (
)
column 2 (new):
<Atom>
<op>÷bld(pred)</op>
</Atom>
column 1 (replace n with m):
pred (
argument1
. . .
argumentm
)
column 2 (replace n with m)
<Atom>
<op>÷bld(pred)</op>
<args ordered="yes">
÷bld(argument1)
. . .
÷bld(argumentm)
</args>
</Atom>
column 1 (new):
func (
)
column 2 (new):
<Expr>
<op>÷bld(func)</op>
</Expr>
column 1 (replace n with m):
func (
argument1
. . .
argumentm
)
column 2 (replace n with m)
<Expr>
<op>÷bld(func)</op>
<args ordered="yes">
÷bld(argument1)
. . .
÷bld(argumentm)
</args>
</Expr>
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 2010 02:59:03 UTC