W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2009

RE: Part I of Response to Peter F. Patel-Schneider

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 14:30:20 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A0011DA7C5@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Ok, I have done the change in the RDF-Based Semantics.

DIFF:
<http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=RDF-Based_Semantics&diff=21
274&oldid=21221>

Cheers,
Michael

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>On Behalf Of Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 6:54 PM
>To: Michael Schneider
>Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Part I of Response to Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>
>You are correct.
>
>We should be uniformly using IRI, which is absolute.  I had mistakenly
>thought that we should be using absolute IRI, which, as you say, does
>not include a fragment.
>
>Changes to be made:
>Syntax: absolute IRI -> IRI (twice)
>	IRI references -> IRIs (twice)
>RDF Mapping: IRI reference -> IRI (about 9 times)
>Manchester Syntax: absolute IRI -> IRI (twice)
>
>peter
>
>
>From: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
>Subject: RE: Part I of Response to Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:34:03 +0200
>
>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote on April 02, 2009:
>>
>>>>>Terminology change:
>>>>>
>>>>>"IRI reference" -> "absolute IRI"
>>>>
>>>> The (consistent) use of "IRI reference" in the document was
>>>deliberate,
>>>> because the term "URI reference" is (also consistently) used in the
>>>> original RDF Semantics document. In general, I wanted to avoid
>>>> terminological deviation from the RDF Semantics. I also want to note
>>>> that the term "IRI reference" is used in the IRI specification
>itself
>>>> (RFC 3987).
>>>>
>>>> Nevertheless, I would agree to change the term, if "IRI reference"
>>>would
>>>> not be in use in the rest of the OWL 2 document suite. However, I
>can
>>>> see that this term is frequently used in at least the Structural
>>>> Specification and in the RDF Mapping.
>>>>
>>>> As a consequence, I would prefer not to change the current use of
>"IRI
>>>> reference".
>>>
>>>This is not a request for a wording change just for stylistic reasons.
>>>My belief is that IRI reference is technically incorrect, as it
>includes
>>>relative IRIs.  SS&FS has already made this change.  RDF uses URI
>>>reference to mean absolute URI with optional fragment.
>>
>> Ok, "absolute resource identifier with optional fragment" is what I
>want to
>> refer to, either, because all our built-in vocabulary terms are
>composed
>> with a fragment "#foo" attached.
>>
>> So I had a look in RFC 3987:
>>
>>  <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt>
>>
>> According to the BNF in Section 2.2 (and hoping that the non-terminals
>stand
>> for what they are called), an "IRI reference" can be either an "IRI"
>or a
>> "relative reference":
>>
>>   IRI-reference = IRI / irelative-ref
>>
>> So you seem to be right. In this case, it is at least not correct to
>use the
>> term "IRI reference" in Section 2.1, where it is said that the nodes
>of
>> triples may be "IRI references".
>>
>> Now, looking further to the BNF, in order to see what is the correct
>term
>> for referring to an "absolute resource identifier with optional
>fragment",
>> there is
>>
>>   IRI = scheme ":" ihier-part [ "?" iquery ] [ "#" ifragment ]
>>
>> and, AFAICT, this has the form I am looking for.
>>
>> In your original mail, you suggested "absolute IRI", but the BNF
>tells:
>>
>>   absolute-IRI   = scheme ":" ihier-part [ "?" iquery ]
>>
>> i.e. the optional fragment is missing.
>>
>> So the winner seems to be "IRI".
>>
>> If you agree, I will replace /every/ occurrence of "IRI reference" by
>"IRI"
>> in the RDF-Based Semantics.
>>
>> In addition, I would then suggest to use "IRI" consistently everywhere
>in
>> our documents (I believe that we never talk about relative references,
>at
>> least not in the core documents (perhaps in OWL/XML, I don't know)).
>There
>> are still many occurrences of "IRI reference" in the Mapping, and at
>least
>> two in the Structural Specification.
>>
>> Do you agree with this approach?
>>
>> Michael

--
Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de
WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
=======================================================================
FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor,
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
=======================================================================



Received on Monday, 6 April 2009 12:31:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 12:31:03 GMT