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 19:28:39 -0400
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7593.1208906919@cs.sunysb.edu>


Sandro wrote:
> 
> > What you are proposing is even worse than expanding the same
> > macro differently in different contexts. Now you are saying that foo:bar
> > really stands for "something-long-here", but in some contexts we are not
> > allowed to use "something-long-here" instead of foo:bar.
> 
> Right.  You can't avoid the short form after the "^^", because then
> you'd have an infinite term.    So?   That doesn't seem so bad to me,
> personally.  The short form is what people will use in nearly all cases;
> the long form is there just for a kind of consistency.
> 
> But since you clearly don't like that, we could allow expanded IRIs
> without the explicit "^^".  And if we do that, really, the hands down
> favorite syntax within languages which use URIs directly is <URI>.  So
> we'd have four equivalent forms:
> 
>    1.  Point Brackets
> 
>          <http://purl.org/dc/terms/creator>
> 
>    2.  CURIEs
> 
>     	 after:   PREFIX("dc", "http://purl.org/dc/terms/").
> 
>          dc:creator

This has the same problem that I mentioned before:

      in one place (in (2)) foo:bar means one thing.
      in some other place (in (4)), it means something else.
      I think it is no good for a macro.


>    3.  Data Value (using Pointy Brackets for rif:uri)
> 
>          "http://purl.org/dc/terms/creator"^^<http://www.w3.org/2007/rif#iri>

This compounds the same problem. In (1), <http://purl.org/dc/terms/creator>
means

"http://purl.org/dc/terms/creator"^^rif:iri.

In (3), the same thing means just http://purl.org/dc/terms/creator


>    4.  Data Value (using CURIE rif:uri)
> 
> 	 after:   PREFIX("rif", "http://www.w3.org/2007/rif#").
> 
>          "http://purl.org/dc/terms/creator"^^rif:iri


This is part of the problem mentioned in (1).

What was wrong with my much simpler proposal to allow macro-expansion (by
simple concatenation) everywhere this stuff occurs unquoted (like after ^^
and inside <...>)?


	--michael  


> Does that work for you?
> 
>    - s
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 23:29:18 GMT

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