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

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

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 08:50:22 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20090406.085022.07519528.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: schneid@fzi.de
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Also done in SS&FS, RDF Mapping, and Manchester syntax.


From: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
Subject: RE: Part I of Response to Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 14:30:20 +0200

> Ok, I have done the change in the RDF-Based Semantics.
> <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)
>>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
>>>>> 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
>>>>> (RFC 3987).
>>>>> Nevertheless, I would agree to change the term, if "IRI reference"
>>>>> not be in use in the rest of the OWL 2 document suite. However, I
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> triples may be "IRI references".
>>> Now, looking further to the BNF, in order to see what is the correct
>>> for referring to an "absolute resource identifier with optional
>>> 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
>>>   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
>>> in the RDF-Based Semantics.
>>> In addition, I would then suggest to use "IRI" consistently everywhere
>>> our documents (I believe that we never talk about relative references,
>>> least not in the core documents (perhaps in OWL/XML, I don't know)).
>>> are still many occurrences of "IRI reference" in the Mapping, and at
>>> two in the Structural Specification.
>>> Do you agree with this approach?
>>> Michael
Received on Monday, 6 April 2009 12:48:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:11 UTC