Re: CURIEs (was Re: Several minor problems in the grammar for the functional-style syntax)

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> 
> 3) Whether to send a comment to the CURIE folks (which ought kick them
> out of CR).
>     I think we should saying:
>         a) The spec must specifically allow for restricted sets of
> characters in CURIEs and perhaps define some "natural" subsets, e.g.,
> NCnames, SPARQL, etc.

+1

>         b) The spec must allow XML host formats to forbid xmlns style
> CURIE prefix decs while having an alternative one.

The text currently says:

[[[
When CURIES are used in an XML-based host language, and that host
language supports XML Namespaces, prefix values MUST be able to be
defined using the 'xmlns:' syntax specified in [XMLNAMES]. Such host
languages MAY also provide additional prefix mapping definition mechanisms.

...

]]]

My understanding is that you do not want to have namespace mechanisms in
OWL/XML. If so, OWL/XML it falls under the negation of the first
condition, doesn't it? Ie, if it does not use xmlns, then, well, the
obligation of using xmlns for prefix definition is simply not relevant.

>         c) There should be a standard alternative declaration mechanism
> in XML, e.g.,:
>     <xml:curieAbbr prefix=".." expansion="..."/>

The current text says 'may' define its own. I do not think that this WG
should take a position on whether the CURIE spec should define a
standard alternative mechanism, because it is irrelevant for this WG (in
view of the previous point and if my assumption is correct on OWL/XML).
(Of course, Bijan Parsia, or the Un of M'ter, may decide to make such
comments!:-)

B.t.w., just as an info: the RDFa task force is currently discussing
adding a @prefix attribute with

prefix="pr1:expansion1 pr2:expansion2 ..."

that could be used on any element to define the prefixes for the dom
tree under this element. Ie, no separate element, just an attribute that
could be used anywhere. The TF is still not sure whether the separator
character will be ':' (like above) or '='.

Cheers

Ivan


> 
> The main downside is putting a heavy dependency on the CURIE spec which
> doesn't seem to be progressing rapidly.
> 
> I think we can:
>     Define things as we think is best. We can conditionally add a ref to
> the CURIE spec, but if the CURIE spec fails to adjust, I think we should
> strike the refs, not the functionality.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf