- From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:43:50 +0200
- To: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
- CC: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <48575D26.7080203@inf.unibz.it>
>>>>> 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"? No, with "label" I mean the short name for datatypes included in the names of guard predicates. For example, the xs:string would have the label "string" or "String". Best, Jos > > -Chris > -- debruijn@inf.unibz.it Jos de Bruijn, http://www.debruijn.net/ ---------------------------------------------- One man that has a mind and knows it can always beat ten men who haven't and don't. -- George Bernard Shaw
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2008 10:03:33 UTC