W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-powderwg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Another semantics question

From: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:41:15 +0100
Message-ID: <480F043B.7090107@icra.org>
To: Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>



Stasinos Konstantopoulos wrote:
[..]

>>>> and which should we use?
>>> It's hard to tell in isolation, depends on where "resourceset_1" comes
>>> from. If it is defined as a restriction on a property, then these two
>>> might as well mean the same.
>> Good. I much prefer the second option - i.e. the one that doesn't  
>> mention hasIRI. The context is a GRDDLed DR so I think this is clear.
> 
> well, there's no way around the hasIRI, it's lurking there somewhere in
> the definition of "resourceset_1". It just that it's not visible in this
> particular fragment.

Yes, but hasIRI isn't actually used anywhere in the class. We define 
hasIRI as a semantic extension linking strings to URIs but then we 
gently ignore it and use regex for most things. Actually, if you succeed 
in using regex for port numbers and CIDR blocks then we should probably 
change the semantic extension to define wdr:regex directly. This is, of 
course, the grey area - more semantic gloop actually - that we're in 
here ...
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2008 09:56:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:12 GMT