- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:35:35 +0000
- To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 23 Mar 2009, at 09:59, Ian Horrocks wrote: > It seems obvious that we should report our difficulties to the > CURIE guys. I can draft an email. > 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? That *is* a bespoke mechanism. Any abbreviation mechanism needs: 1) A syntax for declarations @prefix in turtle, "Namespace: rdf <" in Manchester syntax, etc., and references. This includes legal characters for prefixes and "local names". Peter's proposal is just one (common) bespoke mechanism. 2) A processing model How to expand, what do do with multiple declarations I think our current specs underdescribe this...at least it wasn't obvious to me what happens in MS when you have: Namespace: foo <http://www.ex.org/1> Namespace: foo <http://www.ex.org/2> So, since we're in this game anyway, let's 1) do a proper job and 2) do it consistently across serializations. I think we were subconsciously relying too much on the (future) CURIE spec. It's pretty clear we can't so rely on it. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 10:31:57 UTC