W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2009

CURIEs

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:04:46 +0000
Message-Id: <349BBD41-2FC3-4F20-8720-23EF24CC4D07@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
A heads up (wearing my OWL WG liasing hat):

	Last week, the OWL WG decided not to use the CURIE spec for any OWL  
syntax, but to roll their own, following SPARQL 1's syntax.

The discussion was long and multi-headed, but here's a key pointer:
	<http://www.w3.org/mid/67688DEC-D8EB-4A3B-9DC3-573BE9C45546@cs.manchester.ac.uk 
 >

As well as:
	<http://www.w3.org/mid/BEF6D13A-8B52-43DB-B702-A672CA2FA9BF@cs.manchester.ac.uk 
 >
and
	<http://www.w3.org/mid/CEAE4329369E4127AC2F83BC062E3998@wolf>

This does not introduce a dependency between SPARQL and OWL as OWL is  
just transliterating the relevant productions from the SPARQL spec.

The OWL WG will give feed back to the authors of the CURIE spec.

The real upshot for this WG, I think, is that it's almost certainly  
not helpful for us to introduce a dependancy on the CURIE spec. I  
guess there is the possibility that if it is orphaned, that we could  
take it over. I'm not thrilled with that idea, myself. But, if we do  
SPARQLX, then we will be a group that is using CURIEs both in an XML  
and a non-XML host language which would give us the relevant experience.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Saturday, 28 March 2009 10:05:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:38 GMT