W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > May 2009

Re: symbol space short names

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 01:43:59 +0100
Message-ID: <4A10AF4F.9010103@deri.org>
To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
CC: RIF WG Public list <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Michael Kifer wrote:
> I just became aware of the existence of "short names" for symbol spaces in DTB,
> which was added without discussion and makes no sense. What is it, what is the
> logical status of that beast, and why were they introduced?

It was discussed.

The short names are just a vehicle for the naming-convention of the 
guard and negative predicates, because we cannot "encode" the full 
datatype-IRI in the guard predicate name.

An earlier version of DTB didn't use shortnames, but was trying to 
define the nameing convention for guards in terms of the "trailing 
NCNAME" of the datatype-IRI.

In fact, this naming convention was discussed at the last f2f (browse ab 
bit down after
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/meeting/2009-04-16#datatype_IRIs_etc_break__2d_in)


I had proposed a different naming convention for guards, i.e. using a 
binfary predicate that uses the datatype itself as pred. name i.e.:

DATAYPEIRI( value, true)

for the positive guard and

DATAYPEIRI( value, false)

for the negative guard.

That isn't as readable, but doesn require shortnames for the datatypes.
Anyways, this proposal didn;t find a majority.

the short names aren't used for anything else but for the guards.

Axel



-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, 
Galway
email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Monday, 18 May 2009 00:44:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:08 GMT