- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:35:37 +0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk, ivan@w3.org, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On 22 Mar 2009, at 13:23, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk> > Subject: Re: Several minor problems in the grammar for the > functional-style syntax > Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 12:42:14 +0000 [snip] > The third alternative (#3) means that in the FS one has to put [] > around > the short (and supposedly nicer-to-read) form of identifiers. At least in the case where there's a potential problem. > Ugh. I > think that this is the worst alternative, particularly as other SW > serializations don't go this way. Me too. > The first alternative (#1) is somewhat better. However, if we go this > way I would prefer going all the way back to QNames, even though > QNames > are unnecessarily restrictive. Going half-way means that our "CURIES" > are some entirely new thing. An advantage of this way is that other > SW > serializations do this or close to this. (Perhaps we could slightly > generalize QNAMES as does SPARQL, specifically to allow leading > digits.) I would prefer we separated the very idea of abbreviated uris from QNames and namespaces. Historically, this has been such a source of ongoing confusion and, from XML and HTML land, scorn, it's really worth breaking with it. I think we need to do a WG push back on the CURIE spec. It just isn't doing the job for us in FS, MS, and XML serialization. > I would have preferred the second alternative (#2), *except* that it > has > a big problem. The problem is how to figure out which percent > encodings > are done for our purposes, and which are done for purposes of > encoding a > character in an IRI that clashes with an IRI delimiter. I think that > this means that we can't recover the "true IRI" from our encoding. To > fix this, we *could* have a different method for encoding our problem > characters, but I don't suggest going there. I think it's a non-starter. Though this document might help: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Mar/att-0444/draft.html Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Sunday, 22 March 2009 13:36:15 UTC