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.

peter
 

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.
> 
> 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
Received on Monday, 6 April 2009 12:48:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 12:48:22 GMT