Re: Keeping PrEfIx and BaSe Proposals

I'm surprised that I have to mention this:

#resolution_2 was to keep "the feature in the document" [1] and the 
questionnaire was also specific.

This set of proposals goes beyond the "feature at risk" as signalled in 
the LC.  I don't actually care very much on the designs except for the 
SPARQL redesign but we are post-LC and need to take care (or go for 
another LC).  We have to finish.

[1] https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-05-29#resolution_2

On 29/05/13 17:29, Gavin Carothers wrote:
> Turtle Proposals
>
> 1. Keywords should all have the same case rules. @prefix, @base and a
> should allow for upper-casing

-0.1

The @ forms are the traditional way of writing directives - just leave 
them as they are, especially if the "prefix" forms are supposed to be 
the preferred form.

-0.5 if the doc describes PREFIX as the preferred form in any way.

> 2. Directives should all have optional trailing periods.

+1 - optional for @ forms (I've just added this for my parser)
Does not break existing data.

-1 for keyword forms.  Long term, the use of dot should be where 
necessary, not as a general feature to be expected.

More in a separate reply.

> 3. Turtle should include examples of both forms of PREFIX @prefix
> directives.

Yes.

> 4. Turtle serializes SHOULD output directives using the '@' notation
> with trailing periods.

Difficult and important but what the documents says or recommends about 
serialization is a separate from the resolution detail of what the 
grammar contains.

Openlink have already indicated they will emit the traditional forms and 
I think many others will choose to do the same for a while yet.

SHOULD is quite strong.

I suggest no use of RFC 2119 language (and really, no normative text).

But if there is an preferred form, are the test going to be updated to 
that form where the @prefix is not the point of the test.

> If there are no loud objections to these changes, will update the
> document accordingly.
>
> Example grammar change from gkellog:
>
> [4] prefixID ::= '@'? [Pp][Rr][Ee][Ff][Ii][Xx] PNAME_NS IRIREF "."?
> [5] base ::= '@'? [Bb][Aa][Ss][Ee] IRIREF "."?

Technical issues discussed in a separate reply.

>
> Cheers,
> Gavin

Please make the questionnaire and results public.

 Andy [*]

Disclosure:

[*] My vote in the poll:
Slight preference for disallowing PREFIX and BASE

Comment: [[
The comments list unscientifically suggests more "against" than "for".
]]

PS The proposal for
 > [4] prefixID ::= '@'? [Pp][Rr][Ee][Ff][Ii][Xx] PNAME_NS IRIREF "."?
 > [5] base ::= '@'? [Bb][Aa][Ss][Ee] IRIREF "."?

also asked for 'a' to be case-insensitive.

Received on Thursday, 30 May 2013 09:59:24 UTC