- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 16:44:42 +0000
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi all Following today's call, I have created ISSUE-589 to tackle the scope of prefixes. I am now closing this issue. Cheers, Luc On 10/21/2012 03:22 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: > On Oct 21, 2012, at 6:22 AM, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote: > >> On 16/10/2012 23:37, Luc Moreau wrote: >>>> [[[ >>>> The scope of a namespace declaration directly occurring in a document is the >>>> document itself, exclunding the bundles it may contain >>>> ]]] >>>> >>>> is that, in case of >>>> >>>> document >>>> prefix a <http:...> >>>> ... >>>> bundle abcde >>>> ... a:something ... >>>> endBundle >>>> endDocument >>>> >>>> the usage of 'a:something' is illegal. I am a bit surprised by this >>>> definition; usually (eg, in the trig-in-preparation) the prefix declarations >>>> given on the top are valid for the whole document, but you may have had good >>>> reasons for this restrictions that was discussed before I joined the group. >>>> Ie, I will not object to that, but just wanted to be sure that we do have the >>>> same understanding. >>> Your interpretation is correct. >>> >>> There was a very *strong* push back by several WG members against any notion of >>> scope related to bundles. So, we adopted >>> this solution that makes bundles in prov-n totally self-contained. >>> The downside is that we can't inherit a prefix from a document, instead we have >>> to replicate the prefix declaration. >>> The good thing is that bundles are totally independent, and this fact is >>> exploited in prov-constraints. >> As one who was very concerned about scope in bundles, I think there may be a confusion here. >> >> My concern was with scope of *identifiers*, specifically URIs, > > +1 (the tight scope of the syntax-level prefixes is not of concern - and just imposes a burden for anyone handling the files. But, it is what it is at this point, right?). > > >> that would lead to the possibility of the same URI denoting different things in different bundles. This would make it problematic to merge RDF representations of information from different bundles (under the reasonable expectation that URIs in PROV-DM/PROV-N are preserved in the RDF representations). >> >> The scoping of prefix declarations is a different matter. Prefixes are simply a syntactic mechanism for constructing identifiers. As such, I see no problem with scoping of prefix declarations as long as the resulting identifiers are understood to be not scoped to bundles. This would be very similar to the use of XML namespaces to scope namespaces used for properties in RDF/XML. > +1 > >> That said, I have no overwhelming problem with the resolution proposed, though I can see that it could lead to what some might regard as proliferation of prefix declarations. If PROV-N is expected to be predominantly hand-crafted, then I would be inclined to allow visibility of outer prefix declarations in nested bundles as a matter of convenience for writers. > +1 > > -Tim > >> #g >> >> -- Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Thursday, 1 November 2012 16:45:18 UTC