- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 09:35:31 +0100
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, 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>
Alex, I wonder if it isn't an unnecessary burden on OWL and RIF to be trying to define stuff which is not relevant to either OWL or (if I understand you correctly) RIF. From what you say, these functions are for possible use by future XPath/XQuery implementations that support rdf:text. But in this case, couldn't/shouldn't we remove them from this spec and leave it up to a/the XPath/XQuery WG to come up with a suitable design? Ian On 5 Apr 2009, at 22:33, Axel Polleres wrote: > Sandro Hawke wrote: >>> 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?) > > I guess by future XPath/XQuery implementations that support rdf:text? > Not sure, but I'd definitly find it awkward to leave it open, i.e. > you'd suggest to have a standard document which is inherently > incomplete and says, that future standards will complete it (by > defining the resp. namespace)? > > Axel > >> -- Sandro > > > -- > Dr. Axel Polleres > Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of > Ireland, Galway > email: axel.polleres@deri.org url: http://www.polleres.net/ >
Received on Monday, 6 April 2009 08:36:08 UTC