- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:36:01 -0400
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>, Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>, Jie Bao <baojie@gmail.com>, "public-rdf-text@w3.org" <public-rdf-text@w3.org>, "team-rif-chairs@w3.org" <team-rif-chairs@w3.org>, "team-owl-chairs@w3.org" <team-owl-chairs@w3.org>
> Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> > Hi Axel,
> >
> > What are the plans for the namespace for these functions? I'm
> > concerned any resolution of that will delay publication of the
> > document, and OWL plans to go to CR in the not to distant future and
> > has a dependency on it I'd like to minimize risk on that.
> >
> > Have you considered moving these functions out of the rdf:text
> > specification and into RIF instead?
>
> I am reluctant on this one, to be honest: These functions are not
> RIF-functions but XQuery/XPath style functions. So, I don't see why and
> in which RIF spec they should go.
>
> I agree that "hijacking" the fn namespace is problematic. Can we give it
> our own namespace? e.g. analogously to
>
> fn: http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions
>
> we could use
>
> rdftfn: http://www.w3.org/2009/rdftext-functions
>
> That would be the simplest solution, IMO.
How awkward would to be to leave this undefined? These URLs are never
used in RIF, and before they could be used in XPath, they'd have to be
adopted by the appropriate WGs, which could put them into the 2005
namespace, I think. (Or maybe not -- I don't know the XPath
extensibility story. Do any of us know how these URLs are supposed to
be used?)
-- Sandro
Received on Sunday, 5 April 2009 18:36:15 UTC