- From: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:51:40 -0400
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- CC: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Axel Polleres wrote: > > Jos de Bruijn wrote: >> >> >> Axel Polleres wrote: >>> >>> Jos de Bruijn wrote: >>>> Axel, >>>> >>>> Here are a few things I noticed in the DTB document during the meeting: >>>> >>>> - you use DATATYPE sometimes as the IRI of a datatype and sometimes >>>> as a >>>> non-IRI name of a datatype. It is unclear what the relationship is >>>> between these two names, especially since according to section 2.2 the >>>> names of the data types are IRIs. In addition, the names are not >>>> always >>>> what one would expect. For example, I would expect the short name of >>>> the xs:string datatype to be "string". However, in section 4.1 and 4.2 >>>> it seems to be "String". >>>> I guess it probably makes sense to use some kind of short names for the >>>> datatypes in the names of certain predicates, but the relationship >>>> needs >>>> to be defined. >>> >>> I added respecting paragraphs in 4.1 and 4.2 explaining the naming >>> convention. >>> >>> "As a naming convention we use the non-prefix NCNAME part denoting >>> the data type in CamelCase, for instance we use pred:isString for the >>> guard predicate for xsd:string, or pred:isText for the guard >>> predicate for rif:text. Other RIF dialects involving new datatypes >>> not mentioned in the present document MAY follow this convention >>> where applicable without creating ambiguities with predicate names >>> defined in the present document." >> >> I'm not sure this is sufficient; specifically, you do not define what >> the labels are for any of the datatypes, you only include some >> examples. I think we need to define the concept of a "label" for >> datatypes, and the labels for the XML schema datatypes should be >> mentioned explicitly. >> Then, I am not convinced about the naming convention. Why not just >> capitalize the first character? the camel case convention seems overly >> invasive. > > what about e.g. "is-string"? better? I'm not sure Jos is talking about the names of the guard predicates, but actually I don't know exactly what he means by a "label for datatypes". Are you talking, Jos, about something informal to use in the English text of the document to describe the datatype, e.g. "xsd:string is the datatype for strings"? -Chris -- Dr. Christopher A. Welty IBM Watson Research Center +1.914.784.7055 19 Skyline Dr. cawelty@gmail.com Hawthorne, NY 10532 http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty
Received on Saturday, 14 June 2008 00:52:22 UTC