- 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