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

Re: DTB status (on today's agenda)

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 12:39:10 -0400
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: debruijn@inf.unibz.it, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <15557.1209746350@cs.sunysb.edu>


> > Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > >> Let me reiterate (for the third time) my extremely simple compromise
> > >> proposal.  Here expand(foo) means substitute with the prefix definition of
> > >> foo.
> > >>
> > >> 1. Standalone occurrence:
> > >>     foo:bar ---> "expand(foo)bar"^^"http://www.w3.org/2007/rif#iri"
> > >>
> > >> 2. A ^^-occurrence:
> > >>     "abc"^^foo:bar ----> "abc"^^"expand(foo)bar"
> > > 
> > > I can live with this, if we don't use "^^".   This was the second option
> > > in my e-mail, although I accidentally expanded bar as well.
> > > 
> > > The problem with ^^ is that it's very distinctive and is used in other
> > > semantic web languages.  But in those languages, it's followed by a URI
> > > constant not a string constant.    So I'd have to object that re-using
> > > ^^ with this kind of type difference is too confusing to users.
> > 
> > I thought that in RIF ^^ is also always followed by an IRI constant?
> 
> As Michael writes [1]:
> 
>     In foo^^bar, neither `foo' nor `bar' is a constant. Only the entire
>     foo^^bar is. 
> 
> That tells me the ^^ in RIF is not followed by an IRI constant.
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/0001.html
> 
> > I think we should stick with the ^^ in RIF, because its use actually 
> > generalizes the use in the other semantic Web languages.
> 
> I don't see any way to reconcile Michael's view here with the N3-style
> languages.
> 
> Michael is okay with this:
> 
> (1) "http://purl.org/dc/terms/creator"^^"http://www.w3.org/2007/rif#iri"
> 
> but has a real problem with this:
> 
> (2) "http://purl.org/dc/terms/creator"^^<http://www.w3.org/2007/rif#iri>
> 
> Whereas only (2) is okay in N3-style languages.  In those languages:
> 
>     <foo>    denotes the thing identied by the URI "foo"
>     "foo"    denotes a character string
> 
> right?
> 
>        -- Sandro

Please note that
"http://purl.org/dc/terms/creator"^^<http://www.w3.org/2007/rif#iri> was
one of the options in my message. I just said that if we use <...> here
then we should not use <...> as yet another shortcut.


	--michael  
Received on Friday, 2 May 2008 16:40:21 GMT

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