- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 18:11:10 +0000
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, 'W3C OWL Working Group' <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 22 Mar 2009, at 16:00, Ivan Herman wrote: [snip] > This came up in the other thread: I guess the same rules should apply > for MS and OWL/XML (although I am not sure it is technically necessary > for OWL/XML, but a consistency among the various syntaxes should be > followed). Perhaps. [snip] >> We can send this feedback to the editors of the CURIE spec; >> however, I doubt >> that they will be able to really come up with a magical solution: I >> really thin >> we will need to kick @()^"=<> our from CURIEs. >> > > True. But the CURIE spec seems to be written with the intention to be > included in 'hosting languages' as they say and a feedback showing > that, > at least for some hosting languages, this does not work is valuable > for > them. That was my point. At the moment, from my perspective, CURIEs are not working well either for XML or non-XML host languages. At least, of our sort. > They may cite alternatives for their rules; up to them. Even if we > decide (as Bijan suggests, I think you mean Peter. I'm for beating on the CURIE folks for fixes :) > if I understand it well) to remove the CURIE > reference from our spec and put there our own syntax rules (I would > probably use the SPARQL ones), it is good for them to know the > reasons... Here are the problems thus far, as I see them: For the CURIE spec: 1) Possible clashes with characters in the host languages leading to ambiguities (even for safe CURIEs). 2) Required dependence on xmlns in XML host languages. 3) No standard prefix declaration elements other than xmlns attributes. In our specs 1) Need to solve the ambiguity problem 2) Need to decide on prefix declaration mechanism. Sandro also believes that the "Safe CURIEs or distinct attribute" dilemma is a false one. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Sunday, 22 March 2009 18:11:47 UTC