- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:59:12 +0000
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
It seems obvious that we should report our difficulties to the CURIE guys. It also seems obvious that we can't risk waiting for them to fix the problem and that we thus won't be able to rely on the CURIE spec. But I'm not convinced that developing a bespoke abbreviation mechanism is the right way to go. What about Peter's "just go back to QNAMES" proposal? Ian On 23 Mar 2009, at 09:05, Bijan Parsia wrote: > On 23 Mar 2009, at 08:29, Ivan Herman wrote: > >> Bijan Parsia wrote: > [snip] >>> I think that's a significant difference. Frankly, the CURIE spec >>> is just >>> punting (and badly) on a key aspect of CURIE use. >>> >> >> Yes. But I just do not believe that CURIE guys will have the >> time/energy/etc to add something like that into, essentially, the xml >> namespace in short notice. Ie, I would not rely on having >> <xml:curiePrefixDecl> in the WG's lifetime. > > I agree. > >> Therefore I do not believe >> this is the battle this working group should pick up... > > I'm fine with us not *battling* it, but I think we should *report* > it. Ideally, what we, qua group, needed from the CURIE spec was: > > 1) A series of categories for restricted versions of allowable > characters. > 2) Something to plop into OWL/XML. > > Since the CURIE spec does not provide either of these, we are > forced to make up our own. That seems reasonable feedback to the > XHTML2 WG and any CURIE spec authors of the future. > >> OWL/XML should >> define its own mechanism (whether it is a separate element or the >> @prefix attribute, well, I must admit, I do not have strong feeling >> either way. A separate element might be closer to the FS in spirit.). > > Yes. And better overall from the pov of the xml stack. > >> P.S. A 'social' issue that we have to consider: the CURIE spec is >> owned >> by the current XHTML2 working group. There will be a discussion at >> the >> AC meeting, no later than today afternoon Amsterdam time, about >> the fate >> of that working group. I just have no idea what the outcome will >> be, but >> that might have practical effects on the CURIE spec, too (eg, if the >> group is simply closed down). In other words, it may be the most >> economical approach to indeed choose our own prefix grammar along the >> lines outlined in one of the earlier mails for FS, MS, choose a >> mapping >> of that on OWL/XML either way, and move on. Although it is part of my >> job to synchronize with other work at W3C:-), this may indeed be the >> best way forward:-( > > This is my conclusion as well. It's unfortunate, but I think we > have to face the fact that the CURIE spec is not ready for our > needs and isn't likely to be. > > I'll be sending a proposal for OWL/XML in a bit. > > Cheers, > Bijan. > >
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 09:59:58 UTC