ISSUE-31: RIF Issue about Disjoint Domains for Individuals, Functions, and Predicates

RIF Issue about Disjoint Domains for Individuals, Functions, and Predicates

State:

CLOSED

Product:

Technical Design (multiple dialects/documents)

Raised by:

Deborah Nichols

Opened on:

2007-03-26

Description:

RIF Issue about Disjoint Domains for Individuals, Functions, and Predicates
Posted by Deborah Nichols on behalf of RIF Chairs

The following issue is identified in section 2.1 of the RIF Core
(http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/core/draft-20070323.html):

Issue: Should the symbols used for predicates, functions, and individuals be
distinct in the RIF Core? [Ed. - The sets of individual constants, function
symbols, and predicate symbols should be pairwise disjoint.] In RIF Core,
this can be achieved by making sure that no symbol has more than one signature
at the same time. Dialects can easily extend this by simply allowing the same
symbol to have multiple signatures.

This issue was briefly discussed at the end of the 2007-03-20 telecon (see
Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Mar/att-
0066/20-rif-minutes.html) but remains unresolved. An open question: If the
above sets are pairwise disjoint in RIF Core, how can we remove that
restriction in a RIF dialect: Can this be done by extending the assignment of
signatures to constants? An example could be useful.

Editor’s note: If the same symbol is allowed to have multiple sorts in the
Core (sec. 2.1, below*), doesn’t this override the restriction that the
symbols denoting individuals, functions, and predicates belong to disjoint
sets? Or, has the RIF Core so far not said anything about the names of
individuals, functions, and predicates – all of which are covered by the sort
rif:uri, and distinguished within that sort by signatures? Are individuals,
functions, and predicates distinct sorts in the Core? Speaking only for
myself, it would be helpful to review and perhaps further explain in the Core,
the roles and interactions of sorts and signatures. --DLN

*The current RIF Core draft, section 2.1, states that:
[T]he RIF Core language does not separate symbols used to denote individuals
from symbols used as names for functions or predicates. Instead, all symbols
are drawn from the same universal set. When desired, separation between the
different kinds of symbols is achieved through the mechanism of sorts. In
logic, the mechanism of sorts is used to classify symbols into separate
groups. Currently RIF Core supports the sort rif:uri for URIs, and the sorts
xsd:long (http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#long), xsd:decimal
(http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#decimal), xsd:time
(http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#time), xsd:string
(http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string), and xsd:dateTime
(http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime). Other sorts (such as xsd:double,
xsd:date, and a sort to represent temporal duration) might be added in future
drafts.
To make RIF a Web language and to facilitate extensibility, the underlying
logic of RIF is not only multi-sorted (i.e., allows multiple sorts), but it
also allows symbols to be polymorphic (i.e., the same symbol is allowed to
have several sorts). Some sorts can be disjoint and others not. RIF dialects
will be able to decide which sorts will be allowed for predicate symbols,
which for function symbols, and so on.

Issue 31 was resolved on 22 May as follows:

RESOLVED: RIF Core follows OS (\"overlapping sorts\") as on
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Issue-31 (resolving issue-31)
See minutes of the 22 May 2007 telecom for the recorded resolution
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007May/att-0059/22-rif-
minutes.html).

The last open question on the issue was clarified by Jos de Bruijn\'s email on
that date; see mail archives (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-
wg/2007May/0055.html).

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

No related emails

Related notes:

Display change log