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

RE: absolute/relative URIs in PS (was Re: Lexing RIF PS)

From: Hassan Ait-Kaci <hak@ilog.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:32:33 -0700
Message-ID: <9FC9C6B2EA71ED4B826F55AC7C8B9AAB01F336A9@mvmbx01.ilog.biz>
To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Sandro wrote:

> (And yes, I would expect every modern language to have a URI parsing
> toolkit.  Python certainly does, and I think SWI Prolog does, too.)

I never argued that URI parsing was hard - that was not my point at all
- I could use e.g., http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/index.html
in Java. It is just that the way things are set up in the definition of
the BLD PS, the tokenizer must *parse* all identifiers in order to
determine this. While this is potentially envisageable if URI's are
contained within quotes, the fact is that a tokenizer cannot decide,
whether reading a ':' or '/' or '.', say, is part of a URI or not when
not within quotes.

Personally I don't care one way or the other - it is just that we
must be aware of the level of complications that we introduce for
parsing what is after all only a Spartan syntax - i.e., taht of a
*simple*  bare-bone rule pseudo-language ("pseudo" because it is only
meant to ease our writing RIF examples - i.e., a far cry from a real RL).

My CDN $.02...

-hak
--
Hassan At-Kaci  *  ILOG, Inc. - Product Division R&D
http://koala.ilog.fr/wiki/bin/view/Main/HassanAitKaci



-----Original Message-----
From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org]
Sent: Tue 9/23/2008 9:20 PM
To: Axel Polleres
Cc: Hassan Ait-Kaci; RIF WG
Subject: absolute/relative URIs in PS (was Re: Lexing RIF PS)
 

>  > This, unfortunately again, requires that any lexical analyzer for the
>  > RIF PS include complete IRI parser - which I am not willing to invest
>  > any effort in at this nor any near future time.
> 
> Ok, I agree with your assessment that for relative IRI resolution the
> relative IRI needs to be parsed. but do you imply any consequences?
> Do you suggest we don't support relative IRIs?
> 
> Many other standards do, actually, I would be surprised if not
> off-the-shelf libraries were available which support relative IRI/URI
> resolution.
> 
> Maybe somebody else in the group from the more XML end can add some=
> hints here?

Where do you need to look inside IRIs, in going between the PS and XML?
I would consider it incorrect to change the IRIs during this conversion,
even it was just making IRIs absolute, etc, so I'd think they should be
considered entirely opaque during this translation.

In going from XML to native language, you'll need to do conversion to
absolute URIs, but not in dealing with the PS..... (I think).

(And yes, I would expect every modern language to have a URI parsing
toolkit.  Python certainly does, and I think SWI Prolog does, too.)

    -- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2008 04:33:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:54 GMT