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

Re: XMLification of presentation syntax

From: Hassan At-Kaci <hak@ilog.com>
Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 08:38:30 -0700
Message-ID: <481C86F6.8070705@ilog.com>
To: "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
CC: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Boley, Harold wrote:
> Also referring to
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/0026.html
> 
> recall the Resolution's second sentence:
> "Of course, XML entities can be used."
> 
> Nothing better than XML entities has come up since then.

I am puzzled!... I keep asking the same simple question; namely,
why do we keep using a mistaken notation in our current documents?
And all you keep replying is, "entities are good".

Whether they are or not is NOT my point. I do not really care.

My point is: WE SHOULD NOT KEEP USING THE INCORRECT NOTATION!

Have I made my point clear this time, or are you again going to
tell me how good entities are for brushing tour teeth and taking
the garbage out?... ;-)

The corollary question to this question (after MK's admission that
it has been a mistake) is, "how many other such known inaccuracies
are still in the BLD document?".

Thank you.

-hak

> So I see a consensus to soon replace the informal "expands into"
> of Example 4 etc. with the emerging Consts/CURIEs in PS
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/0015.html ff)
> and with entities in XML (as discussed in this thread).
> 
> -- Harold
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hassan At-Kaci [mailto:hak@ilog.com] 
> Sent: May 3, 2008 8:09 AM
> To: Michael Kifer
> Cc: Boley, Harold; Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: XMLification of presentation syntax
> 
> Michael Kifer wrote:
>> XML does not understand curie macros, so rif:iri is just that for XML.
>> In the presentation syntax, rif:iri is not a "rif:iri" but a macro that
>> expands into something long. So, the earlier use of rif:iri and similar in
>> XML was actually a mistake.
> 
> OK. So you mean to say, "... HAS BEEN actually a mistake" (and still
> IS as far I understand). Correcting this simple mistake is easy then.
> How come it has not been fixed in all the BLD documents and examples
> after the resolution was passed 6 months ago? How many other such
> "mistakes" remain in the current BLD draft that should be so corrected?
> My question is a very pragmatic one: I am trying to implement the dang
> thing.
> 
>> XML uses entities as a similar macro device. A number of standards 
>> (incl OWL) use curies in their abstract syntax examples and entities in XML
>> examples.
> 
> Again - whatever. I was not asking for an XML tutorial. I was just
> trying to find out what to code reading the official output of this WG.
> Doing so, I am putting myself in the shoes of the average Joe reading
> the latest BLD document trying to make practical sense out of our
> official specs. My point is that if the BLD specs still contain such
> inaccuracies despite they having been officially resolved, it makes
> implementing them a bit problematic and frustrating. Or perhaps it is
> too much to ask from this busy group? ;-)
> 
>> 	--michael  
>>
>>
>>> Boley, Harold wrote:
>>>> There is the Resolution from F2F7 I referred to below, Harold
>>> Whatever... And so how come all the BLD documents since then (which
>>> was back in 2007) use rif:iri and not &rif;iri ? Again - what are
>>> the pros and cons for one of the other? I do not recall anything
>>> about that resolution, nor why it was so important, nor why examples
>>> since then have not adhered to it. Please comment and/or explain.
>>>
>>> -hak
>>>
>>> PS/ I understand everything in the RIF XML notation is a (still) a
>>>      moving target, but at least we should make our examples as
>>>      consistent as possible with what has been decided thus far.
>>>      How can anyone prototype this thingie otherwise?
>>>
>>>> PS: OWL 2 also uses entities for such purposes
>>>> (switch to XML: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-primer-20080411/#Basic_Notions):
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-primer-20080411/#Appendix:_The_Complete_Example
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Hassan At-Kaci [mailto:hak@ilog.com] 
>>>> Sent: May 2, 2008 10:28 PM
>>>> To: Boley, Harold
>>>> Cc: Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)
>>>> Subject: Re: XMLification of presentation syntax
>>>>
>>>> Boley, Harold wrote:
>>>>> Given an entity declaration
>>>>> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816/#sec-entity-decl),
>>>>>
>>>>> say
>>>>>
>>>>> <!ENTITY rif "http://www.w3.org/2007/rif#">
>>>>>
>>>>> we can use an entity reference
>>>>> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816/#sec-references),
>>>>>
>>>>> say
>>>>>
>>>>> &rif;
>>>>>
>>>>> so that, e.g.,
>>>>>
>>>>> <Const type="&rif;iri">
>>>>>
>>>>> stands for
>>>>>
>>>>> <Const type="http://www.w3.org/2007/rif#iri">.
>>>>>  
>>>>> -- Harold
>>>> Hmmm... This is then different than what is in the latest BLD draft...
>>>> Note that his makes XML serialization look quite different than what can
>>>> be seen therein. Has this been discussed anywhere? If so when? (I  would
>>>> then have missed it!) The last I recall (and in the latest BLD draft) we
>>>> still had things like "rif:iri" not "&rif;iri". Not that I mind one way
>>>> or the other (besides matters of taste/style), but could you please fill
>>>> me in on why one rather than the other? (In the current implementation I
>>>> am playing with I serialize such a  Const as follows:
>>>>
>>>>        <Const typespace="rif" typename="iri">
>>>>
>>>> which I find clearer and less arcane. But this is my taste. I can surely
>>>> make it produce your entity-style notation if this is what this group
>>>> prefers.)
>>>>
>>>> -hak
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Hassan At-Kaci [mailto:hak@ilog.com] 
>>>>> Sent: May 2, 2008 8:47 PM
>>>>> To: Boley, Harold
>>>>> Cc: Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)
>>>>> Subject: Re: XMLification of presentation syntax
>>>>>
>>>>> Boley, Harold wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Hassan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good to learn about your progress here, which should help soon in
>>>>>> the development of test cases etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is this Resolution from F2F7:
>>>>>> "RESOLVED: In the XML syntax, we'll use full IRIs (not qnames or
>>>>>> curies) for Const types, etc. Of course, XML entities can be used."
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Resolutions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I plan to update the XML syntax using entities, as in this example:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "cpt:purchase"^^rif:iri ==> <Const type="&rif;iri">&cpt;purchase</Const>
>>>>> Huh? Could you pls kindly comment on the &rif; and  &cpt; thingies?
>>>>>
>>>>>> cpt:purchase and rif:iri are tokenized as pairs of atomic strings
>>>>>> (e.g., the pairs colon('cpt','purchase') and colon('rif','iri'),
>>>>>> respectively), from which the XML is ultimately generated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Generally, for a single colon on both sides of the doublehat:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "w:x"^^y:z  =tokenize=>  doublehat(colon('w','x'),colon('y','z'))
>>>>>>               . . .
>>>>>>             =xmlgen=>    <Const type="&y;z">&w;x</Const>
>>>>> Same question re: &y; and  &w; ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> -hak
>>>>>
>>>>>> We could forbid multiple colons on either side of the doublehat
>>>>>> or adopt an appropriate escaping convention for colons, hats, etc.
>>>>>> In case there is no colon on either side of the doublehat,
>>>>>> tokenizing of that side returns a single atomic string.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Harold
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Hassan At-Kaci [mailto:hak@ilog.com] 
>>>>>> Sent: May 2, 2008 1:39 PM
>>>>>> To: Boley, Harold
>>>>>> Cc: Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)
>>>>>> Subject: XMLification of presentation syntax
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While this ping-pong exchange has been raging on the topic of the -
>>>>>> by now - (in)famous, notation "foo:bar"^^rif:buzz, I have been myself
>>>>>> laboring on more pedestrian pursuits generating a compiler for the
>>>>>> presentation syntax that would at least be able to parse the syntax
>>>>>> of the examples given in [1] and produce the XML trees rendered as
>>>>>> written by you in that document.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is what I am not sure to understand right. Your explanation
>>>>>> will be most appreciated - so I can proceed and finish that thing
>>>>>> already!... :-) (I am very close actually - but I'd be unwise to
>>>>>> crow victory too soon as there may be further such snags lurking
>>>>>> still.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The EBNF rules you give for this pertain to the non-terminal Const
>>>>>> for which you give the following rules (in [2]):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Const          ::= '"' UNICODESTRING '"^^' SYMSPACE
>>>>>>    SYMSPACE       ::= UNICODESTRING
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then, you give the following (informal context-sensitive) translation
>>>>>> (meta-)rule for expressing this construct in XML (see [3]):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    unicodestring^^space ==> <Const type="space">unicodestring</Const>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that this EBNF uses two tokens '"' and '"^^' and NOT three tokens
>>>>>> '"', '"', and '^^', so that this begs the question of how what goes in
>>>>>> between '"' and '"^^' gets interpreted (especially ':').
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You give examples of how this is actually used to produce the XML
>>>>>> encoding of the presentation syntax, such as in Example 4 of [4] :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    "cpt:purchase"^^rif:iri ==> <Const type="rif:iri">cpt:purchase</Const>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, I note the following points in this example:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a. cpt:purchase (without quotes) is the UNICODESTRING. By that, I
>>>>>>     understand that it is tokenized as a single atomic string (namely,
>>>>>>     the string 'cpt:purchase' where ':' is part of the string).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> b. rif:iri (also without quotes) is also a UNICODESTRING, and thus
>>>>>>     it too is tokenized as a single atomic string.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above makes me think that the UNICODESTRING could be anything
>>>>>> not containing special chars (including ':' and such that may have
>>>>>> other special meaning in XML). Am I right ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My question: "Is ':' given any special meaning? In other words, is
>>>>>> 'cpt:purchase' an XML local name, or is it that 'cpt' is the XML
>>>>>> namespace and 'purchase' the XML local name ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for clarifying...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -hak
>>>>>>
>>>>>> References:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD
>>>>>> [2]http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#EBNF_for_the_RIF-BLD_Rule_Language
>>>>>> [3]http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#Translation_of_the_RIF-BLD_Condition_Language
>>>>>> [4]http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#XML_for_the_RIF-BLD_Condition_Language
>>> -- 
>>> Hassan At-Kaci  *  ILOG, Inc. - Product Division R&D
>>> http://koala.ilog.fr/wiki/bin/view/Main/HassanAitKaci
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 


-- 
Hassan At-Kaci  *  ILOG, Inc. - Product Division R&D
http://koala.ilog.fr/wiki/bin/view/Main/HassanAitKaci
Received on Saturday, 3 May 2008 15:38:28 GMT

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