- From: Alexandre Passant <alexandre.passant@deri.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:58:14 +0800
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 11 Nov 2010, at 01:14, Axel Polleres wrote: > > On 10 Nov 2010, at 17:05, Andy Seaborne wrote: > >> >> >> On 09/11/10 23:24, Axel Polleres wrote: >>> >>> On 10 Nov 2010, at 04:02, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 09/11/10 17:42, Axel Polleres wrote: >>>>>>> which we may want to reuse, or should we uniformly refer to the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql-functions# >>>>>>> >>>>>>> for all functions (also the xs: ones? >>>>>> >>>>>> Reuse where possible. >>>>> >>>>> Remembering that we had this discussion partly before, one argument against reuse and for uniformly using a single >>>>> namespace was that this single namespace would indicate exactly the interchangeable functions within the SPARQL1.1 spec >>>>> and that these functions then would be usable without a namespace prefix as simple keywords of the language. >>>> >>>> Must have missed that - I don't recall a proposal to make the names >>>> keywords in the language for all mandatory functions from F&O - is the >>>> proposal to add new keywords for all required functions, then map to >>>> IRIs (sparqlfn:) and owl:sameAs to fn:. >>> >>> that'd work for me. >> >> It was a question - is that the proposal you are making? > > Yes. > > 1) owl:sameAs is one possiblity. > We could describe such things in the sparqlfn: namespace document, right? > > 2) Alternatively/additionally we could also redirect that URI to the fn: one. > To be discussed. > > 3) this one is more speculative... could we also do something similar to RDFa's namespace profiles? > (this is more a question than a proposal so far, because I don't know/understand that mechanism well enough yet) > Good idea, and that would be nice if we can use term mappings in similar profiles. (e.g. fooBar rather than having to check if thats fn:fooBar, sparql:fooBar or myRDFStore:fooBar) If not, we'll still have 2 URI prefixes. Alex. > > >> It's not >> support - when there is a detailed proposal on the table I'll decide. >> >> I don't recall it coming up before and I don't understand the argument >> for adding more keywords to the language (it's a grammar change albeit >> with no issues arising). An open set of keywords based on prefixless >> usage is a problem for the grammar, e.g. function called "select". > > It's simply weird for users IMO, if they have to use prefixes for some > of the default supported functions, but not for others. > > best, > Axel > > >> Using the same URIs if it means the same thing makes more sense to me >> but the net effect of your proposal is that I-as-implementer will have >> to add IRIs both ways round. >> >> Since sparqlfn: will not be needed (if there are SPARQL-unique >> functions, they have keywords so you don't need IRIs anyway), the >> argument for one namespace does not work for me. If an implementation >> adds an extra fn: not in the required set, then doe sit also appear in >> sparqlfn: - presumably not but then the app writer sees fn: but not >> sparqlfn:. >> >> It will be a bit more diffcult to work with service descriptions if >> inference is needed. Leigh Dodds' survey uses use of fn: and of >> per-system naming. The expecations of all fn: have not arisen in my >> experience in practice - documentation helps: >> http://openjena.org/ARQ/library-function.html >> >> Andy >> >>> >>> Axel >>> >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> PS >>>> http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AkNZYESXv3IndGwyRkRXZ2hES0RjM0c3MHhLa05vTmc&gid=0 >>>> >>> >>> >> > > -- Dr. Alexandre Passant Digital Enterprise Research Institute National University of Ireland, Galway :me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 23:58:55 UTC