- 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