Re: Review XML Data in RIF

I should be able to do it in a week.
cheers
michael


On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 19:36:29 +0200
Christian De Sainte Marie <csma@fr.ibm.com> wrote:

> Adrian, Gary, Michael,
> 
> (Adrian, thanx for your review; see discussion below)
> 
> (Gary, I also answer you earlier comments, below)
> 
> (Michael, any chance you would have the time to have a look at the spec?)
> 
> I am almost done updating the RIF+XML data document [1], now: remains only 
> to add a couple exmaples in the section "Combined interpretation of RIF 
> BLD non-document formulas and XML data", and to complete the Glossary. I 
> do not intend to include any text (except the current Editor's notes, in 
> the conformance section, nor the appendices B and C. I propose to leave 
> them in the document, nonetheless, as place holders, and a clear 
> indication that the document is only a working draft. I will complete the 
> work in the coming hours or days,
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/XML-Data
> 
> However, I would like the three of you to have a last look at the 
> document, and give your imprimaturs. I think the current state of 
> completion is sufficient for you to do that: there is no way we can make 
> major changes at this stage, but we can add Editor's notes wherever you 
> think one is needed.
> 
> I left a couple such notes myself, both as indications that thi sis still 
> a WD, and to mark places where I think the proposed spec needs more 
> discussion.
> 
> Below are responses to Adrian's and Gary's reviews.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Christian
> 
> IBM
> 9 rue de Verdun
> 94253 - Gentilly cedex - FRANCE
> Tel./Fax: +33 1 49 08 29 81
> 
> 
> Adrian wrote on 07/10/2010 17:59:42:
> > 
> > The document is clearly in the state of a first working draft and has 
> many
> > editors? notes left. Several sections and details are missing, like 
> e.g.
> > the conformance definition. I would propose to make this explicit in
> > ?Status of this Document? section in the beginning, as readers might
> > wonder why the RIF working group is finished while this document is 
> still
> > very much a working draft.
> 
> I completed the doc quite a lot, and I removed many of the editor's notes. 
> But I left some, and some parts will remain missing.
> 
> But we resolved to publish it as a WD, anyway, so that it will be clear 
> (in the status etc) that this work in progress (although it is less clear 
> how we will manage to progress it any further, of course :-)
> 
> > Section 2 Definition (RIF+XML data combination)
> > ?E is a, possibly empty, set of [data model nodes]XP that contains the
> > information that is represented in the XML data
> > 
> > Q: Does it make sense to have just an XML schema attached with a RIF
> > document without having any concrete XML data, i.e. an empty XML data 
> set?
> 
> Consumer-side data. I reworked section 3: is that any clearer, now?
> 
> > C: The constraints on the combination are missing.
> 
> I fixed that, quickly and dirtily; but that should be enough for the WD. 
> Or isn't it?
> 
> > C: Since the complete working draft has been written for using Strings 
> to
> > represent XPath expressions, I propose to remove the editors notes about
> > rif:IRI as alternative.
> 
> Yes, I agree. I wondered what I should do about them. I left it to allow 
> Gary and Michael to give an opnion without having to dig into a past 
> version.
> 
> Gary, Michael, do you agree we should remove the note (in section 2.1).
> 
> > ?Another rule example, below, shows how another kind of XPath 
> expression,
> > used as an xs:string constant: "@xml:lang"</nowiki>>?
> > 
> > C: </nowiki>> should be removed
> 
> Done.
> 
> > A consequence is that such values have to be cast into the required 
> types
> > when used as arguments to RIF buit-in functions and predicates.
> > 
> > C: RIF built-in functions
> 
> Why not predicates as well?
> 
> > to add a frame formula to the condition, to check that the variable ?x 
> is
> > bound to an element that is, itself, named ex:Customer":
> > 
> > ?x["ex:Name" -> ?y]
> > ?x["self::ex:Customer"->?x]
> > 
> > 
> > C: This imposes an ordering of the conditions, since ?x first needs to 
> be
> > bound. So you cannot write:
> > ?x["self::ex:Customer"->?x]
> > ?x["ex:Name" -> ?y]
> 
> Disagree. sub-formulas are not ordered in an And (nor in an Or, for that 
> matter).
> 
> > 2.2.2. Combined interpretation of RIF BLD non-document formulas and XML 
> data
> > 
> > 
> > C: [component-kind()]CD; [component-name()]CD etc. has not be defined 
> before
> 
> As mentioned in the intro, the notation indicates that they are defined in 
> XSD-CD, and that the definition is repeated in the glossary (but, of 
> course, they not yet in the glossary, which may be why you were confused 
> :-)
> 
> > Definition (RIF BLD+XML data combined interpretation)
> > Itruth(Iframe(IDM(e))(IC("expr"^^xs:string), RIFValue(e, expr))) = t 
> (true)
> > 
> > Q: Is it actually an interpretation of a frame as defined in the 
> semantics
> > of BLD or something which syntactically looks like a frame but 
> semantically
> > it is different (e.g. order dependent, based on an external schema, at 
> least
> > for the XPath functions etc.)?
> 
> No, it is actually an interpretation fo a frame as defined in the 
> semantics of RIF BDL, see section 2.2.1.
> 
> I re-structures the whole section 2.2 to try to make that clearer. And I 
> added explicit references to BLD definitions, wherever I thought there 
> might be a doubt.
> 
> Does that work better?
> 
> > (T1, T2) ? Classes(S)2
> > 
> > Q: Why Classes(S)2?
> 
> I replaced Classes(S)^2 with Classes(S) x Classes(S).
> 
> Was that your question?
> 
> Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com> wrote on 21/09/2010 17:03:49:
> > 
> > A medium-severity issue is that the ebnf in section 2 does not show an 
> > abbreviated syntax, even though it is referenced in the following couple 
> 
> > of paragraphs. Also, an example contains "?x[".ex:customer"]->?x which 
> > is not valid syntax according to the ebnf (nor xpath, I think). Maybe 
> > you meant "../ex:customer", although that is not valid by the ebnf, 
> either.
> 
> Corrected. I added the missin gparts in the EBNF.
> 
> > implementation-dependent: isn't this the same as "undefined"? And why 
> > not define whether a singleton sequence should be a list, or not?
> 
> Right. I removed the definition :-)
> 
> > It is unclear whether PRD actions can modify an XML document (or an RDF 
> > graph, for RDF combinations).
> 
> Yes, rules can modify the input data. In PRD, you can then use the Print 
> action to serialize the state of the data after execution of the rules, I 
> guess.
> 
> > Shouldn't consumer-side input, if allowed at all, also apply to RDF/OWL 
> > data?
> 
> I am absolutely sure that it has to be allowed in the combination with 
> XMLdata/schema. I do not know for sure about RDF/OWL graph: depends on the 
> use cases, I guess.
> 
> > This version represents a "radical" change from previous versions, and 
> > although I found nothing obviously broken, more eyes need to look at it. 
> 
> > And I need more time to think about it. But I think I like it.
> 
> Yes, I think I like it too :-)
> 
> Thanx to all for the constructive comments that brought us there.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Christian
> 
> Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus:/ Unless stated otherwise above:
> Compagnie IBM France
> Siege Social : 17 avenue de l'Europe, 92275 Bois-Colombes Cedex
> RCS Nanterre 552 118 465
> Forme Sociale : S.A.S.
> Capital Social : 612.509.964 ?
> SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 03644
>

Received on Friday, 8 October 2010 19:40:58 UTC