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

Re: CURIE proposal ...

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:19:40 -0400
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Cc: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <23013.1208877580@cs.sunysb.edu>


Axel wrote:
>
> Michael Kifer wrote:
> > Jos wrote:
> >> Therefore, I would suggest to adopt the following suggestions by Axel:
> >>
> >>> 1) We use UNQUOTED prefix:ncname to denote CURIEs which expand to QUOTED 
> >>> IRIs
> >>  > 4) For symbol space IRIs (i.e. IRIs after the ^^) we only allow eithr
> >>  > the unquoted prefix:ncname writing or the angle bracketted name.
> >>
> >> i.e.,
> >> mailto:chris = "http://....#chris"^^rif:iri = 
> >> "http://....#chris"^^http://.....#iri
> >>
> >> CURIES should *not* be allowed as the first part of a constant name, 
> >> i.e., my:curie^^rif:iri should not be allowed.
> > 
> > I really dislike this particular proposal. It appears to me as an ugly
> > hack. 
>  >
> > In some contexts a macro would expand into just a concatenation and
> > in other contexts into a concatenation plus ^^rif:iri. Yuck!
>  >
> > I am more sympathetic to shortcuts where macro-expansion is well-defined.
> > For example, in unquoted contexts and inside <...> (which can be used as
> > a shortcut for urls). Then you can have
> > <mailto:cris> = "http://....#chris"^^rif:iri = "http://....#chris"^^http://.....#iri
> 
> this (CURIEs within angle brackets) is against the conventions used in
> Turtle (it resembles XML though, but there a prefix:ncname pair is a 
> QName and not a CURIE).

Exactly. They use QNames and we need curies. There is too much confusion in
people's minds, and we should not further that. It was bad enough to use
the same symbol : for both qnames and curies. (I was arguing to use a
different syntax, as in SWSL and WSMO.)

> As for a generic macro definition mechanism XML already offers entity 
> references.

You are confusing things again. We are talking about the ***PRESENTATION
SYNTAX***. Not about XML! In XML we decided to not use Curies. In fact,
I just realized that all our XML examples are wrong in that respect: we
need to change them to use entities.

> To me it appears that there is a mess already: XML is different from 
> Turtle is different from RDF/XML... All I intended to propose was 
> adopting ONE of them (Turtle) without compromises, instead of inventing 
> yet another one.

No, you are proposing to import that mess into RIF.


	--michael  


> Axel
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Axel Polleres, Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI)
> email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/
> 
> rdfs:Resource owl:differentFrom xsd:anyURI .
> 
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 15:20:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:48 GMT