- From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:48:45 +0100
- To: "'Axel Polleres'" <axel.polleres@deri.org>, "'Ian Horrocks'" <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- 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>, <team-rif-chairs@w3.org>, <team-owl-chairs@w3.org>
Hello, Perhaps I'm adding to the confusion, but I'll give it a shot: if we are defining an rdf:text datatype, why don't we add the functions into the rdf: namespace? Regards, Boris > -----Original Message----- > From: public-rdf-text-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-text-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Axel Polleres > Sent: 06 April 2009 10:10 > To: Ian Horrocks > Cc: Sandro Hawke; Alan Ruttenberg; Phillips, Addison; Jos de Bruijn; Jie Bao; > public-rdf-text@w3.org; team-rif-chairs@w3.org; team-owl-chairs@w3.org > Subject: Re: changes on rdf:text on the remaining Ed notes > > Ian Horrocks wrote: > > Alex, > ^^^^^^ Axel ;-) > > > 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 > > The rationale is: RIF built-ins are to a large extent just adaptions of > the respective XPath/XQuery built-ins. That way, an XPath/Xquery library > should be re-usable for RIF implementations. In XPath/Xquery there is > functions and operators defined for the primitive datatypes. What we do > is a new primitive datatype, and as such, I suggest to have a set of > basic functions and ops defined in that same way, re-sable for RIF, as > well as for extensiond of XML query languages. In my opinion, as > definers of the datatype, this is well inside our scope. > If we do it in a RIF-only way, I personally think it is too narrow. > > Also, it seems we are there already, the only thing missing being a > namespace. Something like > > rdftfn: http://www.w3.org/2009/rdftext-functions > > would be fine, it seems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/ > >> > > > > > -- > 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 09:50:01 UTC