Re: Brand new version of the RIF+XML data document (would you review it, please?)

There are a number of minor issues that I would need more time to report.

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.

implementation-dependent: isn't this the same as "undefined"? And why 
not define whether a singleton sequence should be a list, or not?

It is unclear whether PRD actions can modify an XML document (or an RDF 
graph, for RDF combinations).

Shouldn't consumer-side input, if allowed at all, also apply to RDF/OWL 
data?

These last 2 points also apply to previous versions of the spec.

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. Thanks, 
Christian.

Christian De Sainte Marie wrote:
>
> Michael, Gary
>
> I have essentially completed the rework of the RIF+XML data spec [1]: 
> there are still examples to be added, and a few places that need be 
> developed more in depth, but the content is essentially there.
>
> Apart from completing the rework of the semantics that was already 
> started in the June WD, the main change is that the discussion about 
> the syntax (e.g. [2]) led me to come back to XPath expressions (as 
> xs:string) in frame slots for navigating through XML data, and XSD 
> component designators (as xs:string) in membership and subclass 
> formulas for designating named elements and complex types as classes.
>
> Would you care to review the document in its current state, please? 
> One question is whether it is essentially sound or not: if it is, I 
> can put the extra work needed for a publication befor ethe end of the 
> month (and the WG); if it has major flaws, on the other hand, we will 
> need to discuss what to do with it (where one of the option is to 
> request an extension to correct those flaws).
>
> I know that the notice is extremely short, but, if you accept to 
> review the document, it would be very useful if you could give a first 
> feedback (wrt soundness/major flaws) for the telecon tomorrow.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/XML-Data
> [2] Thread starting with 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2010Sep/0004.html
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christian
>
> IBM
> 9 rue de Verdun
> 94253 - Gentilly cedex - FRANCE
> Tel./Fax: +33 1 49 08 29 81
>
>
> 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
>