W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007


From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:57:09 -0500
Message-Id: <7E8F323F-2043-49BF-A5B2-2C15A12FE994@gmail.com>
Cc: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>

Thanks for the clarification, Jeremy. A couple of notes in line.  
Don't answer them if you don't feel like it, given the intent to  

On Nov 23, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>> I have satisfied myself that my colleagues do not have objection  
>> to the proposed resolution, and I am happy to support it.
> Ooops - after further feedback, I am afraid I need to modify that.
> HP will abstain on this proposal, reflecting that we have some  
> minority concerns ...
> - there are an excess of WDs with a claimed normative defn of  
> CURIEs (the CURIE WD, an RDFa WD, and two XHTML 2.0 WDs)
>     + a copy/paste solution would make this worse

Agreed, at least if they are not the copy/pasting the same thing.  
Haven't checked.

> - the prefix binding issue that is not addressed with CURIEs is non- 
> trivial (e.g. early versus late binding).
"When CURIES are used in a non-XML grammar, the grammar MUST provide  
a mechanism for defining the mapping from the prefix to an IRI."

So, in our case, for the functional syntax, this choice is delegated  
to us, and we have an existing mechanism.

> - tension with the SPARQL not-a-CURIE construct

Why an issue: Because of  cut and paste from functional syntax to  
SPARQL? SPARQL's choice is upward compatible with CURIES.

> - at least in the CURIE WD, the empty prefix is prebound to a  
> specific namespace.

"When a CURIE is used in a non-XML grammar, the grammar MUST provide  
a mechanism for defining the default prefix."
Seems like this is delegated to us again, since we are talking about  
a non XML grammar (the functional syntax)

> - if we are going to use CURIEs in XML documents (such as the XML  
> serialization of the functional syntax), then
>     + we should be asking the XML Schema WG to extend the primitive  
> base types of XML Schema 1.1 (Datatypes).
>     + it is likely that XML tools, such as XSLT, will have  
> difficulty in getting the prefix binding correct.
The proposal was solely for use in functional syntax.

> - this TAG issue  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ 
> issues.html#abbreviatedURIs-56
> In light of these concerns I personally would advocate a fairly  
> conservative approach, of, at this stage:
> - citing the (alegedly moribund) CURIE WD, rather than using copy/ 
> paste
> - identifying in which contexts we expect users to be using CURIEs,  
> rather than URIs.
> - letting the TAG know that we are an interested party with respect  
> to their issue.
> A choice to use CURIEs would make it more difficult for us to  
> advance past last call, before the TAG have resolved this issue.
> (I don't feel that I can in good faith vote for or against any  
> particular resolution, without making a bigger issue of this with  
> my colleagues than seems appropriate - so I ask the WG to accept  
> that HP will abstain, without making the normally expected efforts  
> to get unanimity).
> Jeremy
Received on Saturday, 24 November 2007 01:57:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:00 UTC