- From: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@uninsubria.it>
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 12:08:07 +0200
- To: Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>
Hi, Stasinos. >> [snip] >> >> The proposal for the POWDER-BASIC schema requires just includeregexp, >> i.e., it does not require any constraint on the IRI host. This means >> that, if a POWDER-BASIC document is obtained from a POWDER one, the >> constraint on the IRI host is kept, since it is in the original POWDER >> document. However, if anyone writes directly his/her own POWDER-BASIC >> document, we cannot be sure that the constraint on the IRI host will be >> kept. >> >> So, we have two options: >> >> 1. Drop the constraint on the IRI host: in such a case, this won't be >> required by POWDER, and POWDER-BASIC will be as proposed. >> >> 2. Keep the constraint: in such a case, the POWDER XML schema won't be >> changed, but we have to put such constraint in the POWDER-BASIC XML >> schema. I see here a possible option: the POWDER-BASIC XML schema >> requires one and exactly one instance of <includehosts /> AND >> <includeregexp /> in an <iriset />. > > The whole point of POWDER-BASIC is that it knows nothing about > <includehosts />, so (2) is not possible. > > (1) is possible, but unnecessary. We can keep the POWDER constraint, and > not worry about POWDER-BASIC (or, for that matter, POWDER-S) authors. > > Implementors of POWDER-BASIC extensions will have to specify their own > constraints, depending on their domain and target audience. > > So, I suggest: > > 3. Keep the constraint: in such a case, the POWDER XML schema won't be > changed. Futhermore, not all POWDER-BASE documents can be turned into > valid POWDER documents. This looks OK, there is no reason to guarantee > the convertibility in this direction. I was not proposing to keep the constraint on the IRI host with the purpose of converting POWDER-BASIC into POWDER. The problem is, as I said, that, if only includeregexp is required, I can write a POWDER-BASIC document claiming that "all the resources hosted by any host, and having a path starting with /foo, are blue." Should we allow this? >> [snip] >> >> 1. POWDER + extensions -> POWDER ( -> POWDER-BASIC [optional] ) >> >> 2. POWDER + extensions -------------> POWDER-BASIC > > No, 2 is: > > POWDER-BASIC + extensions -> POWDER-BASIC Thanks for this correction. Andrea
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2008 10:08:49 UTC