RE: XMLification of presentation syntax

So far we have regarded compact URI prefixes as being outside the
realm of formalization in both the presentation and XML syntaxes.

E.g., the "expands into" of Example 4 is not formalized there:
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#XML_Serialization_Syntax_for_RIF-BLD
Compact URI prefixes are in a separate informal block whose scope
is the subsequent block of presentation as well as XML syntaxes.

As we are converging to a formalization of compact URI prefixes
in the presentation syntax, it seems the right time to also
formalize them in the XML syntax.

While y:z cannot be unambiguously used as PCDATA or CDATA content
(http://www.w3.org/TR/curie), &y;z can.

-- Harold


-----Original Message-----
From: Hassan At-Kaci [mailto:hak@ilog.com] 
Sent: May 2, 2008 10:54 PM
To: Boley, Harold
Cc: Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)
Subject: Re: XMLification of presentation syntax

Boley, Harold wrote:
> There is the Resolution from F2F7 I referred to below, Harold

Whatever... And so how come all the BLD documents since then (which
was back in 2007) use rif:iri and not &rif;iri ? Again - what are
the pros and cons for one of the other? I do not recall anything
about that resolution, nor why it was so important, nor why examples
since then have not adhered to it. Please comment and/or explain.

-hak

PS/ I understand everything in the RIF XML notation is a (still) a
     moving target, but at least we should make our examples as
     consistent as possible with what has been decided thus far.
     How can anyone prototype this thingie otherwise?

> PS: OWL 2 also uses entities for such purposes
> (switch to XML: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-primer-20080411/#Basic_Notions):
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-primer-20080411/#Appendix:_The_Complete_Example
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hassan At-Kaci [mailto:hak@ilog.com] 
> Sent: May 2, 2008 10:28 PM
> To: Boley, Harold
> Cc: Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: XMLification of presentation syntax
> 
> Boley, Harold wrote:
>> Given an entity declaration
>> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816/#sec-entity-decl),
>>
>> say
>>
>> <!ENTITY rif "http://www.w3.org/2007/rif#">
>>
>> we can use an entity reference
>> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816/#sec-references),
>>
>> say
>>
>> &rif;
>>
>> so that, e.g.,
>>
>> <Const type="&rif;iri">
>>
>> stands for
>>
>> <Const type="http://www.w3.org/2007/rif#iri">.
>>  
>> -- Harold
> 
> Hmmm... This is then different than what is in the latest BLD draft...
> Note that his makes XML serialization look quite different than what can
> be seen therein. Has this been discussed anywhere? If so when? (I  would
> then have missed it!) The last I recall (and in the latest BLD draft) we
> still had things like "rif:iri" not "&rif;iri". Not that I mind one way
> or the other (besides matters of taste/style), but could you please fill
> me in on why one rather than the other? (In the current implementation I
> am playing with I serialize such a  Const as follows:
> 
>        <Const typespace="rif" typename="iri">
> 
> which I find clearer and less arcane. But this is my taste. I can surely
> make it produce your entity-style notation if this is what this group
> prefers.)
> 
> -hak
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hassan At-Kaci [mailto:hak@ilog.com] 
>> Sent: May 2, 2008 8:47 PM
>> To: Boley, Harold
>> Cc: Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)
>> Subject: Re: XMLification of presentation syntax
>>
>> Boley, Harold wrote:
>>> Hi Hassan,
>>>
>>> Good to learn about your progress here, which should help soon in
>>> the development of test cases etc.
>>>
>>> There is this Resolution from F2F7:
>>> "RESOLVED: In the XML syntax, we'll use full IRIs (not qnames or
>>> curies) for Const types, etc. Of course, XML entities can be used."
>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Resolutions
>>>
>>> I plan to update the XML syntax using entities, as in this example:
>>>
>>> "cpt:purchase"^^rif:iri ==> <Const type="&rif;iri">&cpt;purchase</Const>
>> Huh? Could you pls kindly comment on the &rif; and  &cpt; thingies?
>>
>>> cpt:purchase and rif:iri are tokenized as pairs of atomic strings
>>> (e.g., the pairs colon('cpt','purchase') and colon('rif','iri'),
>>> respectively), from which the XML is ultimately generated.
>>>
>>> Generally, for a single colon on both sides of the doublehat:
>>>
>>> "w:x"^^y:z  =tokenize=>  doublehat(colon('w','x'),colon('y','z'))
>>>               . . .
>>>             =xmlgen=>    <Const type="&y;z">&w;x</Const>
>> Same question re: &y; and  &w; ...
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> -hak
>>
>>> We could forbid multiple colons on either side of the doublehat
>>> or adopt an appropriate escaping convention for colons, hats, etc.
>>> In case there is no colon on either side of the doublehat,
>>> tokenizing of that side returns a single atomic string.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Harold
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Hassan At-Kaci [mailto:hak@ilog.com] 
>>> Sent: May 2, 2008 1:39 PM
>>> To: Boley, Harold
>>> Cc: Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)
>>> Subject: XMLification of presentation syntax
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> While this ping-pong exchange has been raging on the topic of the -
>>> by now - (in)famous, notation "foo:bar"^^rif:buzz, I have been myself
>>> laboring on more pedestrian pursuits generating a compiler for the
>>> presentation syntax that would at least be able to parse the syntax
>>> of the examples given in [1] and produce the XML trees rendered as
>>> written by you in that document.
>>>
>>> Here is what I am not sure to understand right. Your explanation
>>> will be most appreciated - so I can proceed and finish that thing
>>> already!... :-) (I am very close actually - but I'd be unwise to
>>> crow victory too soon as there may be further such snags lurking
>>> still.)
>>>
>>> The EBNF rules you give for this pertain to the non-terminal Const
>>> for which you give the following rules (in [2]):
>>>
>>>    Const          ::= '"' UNICODESTRING '"^^' SYMSPACE
>>>    SYMSPACE       ::= UNICODESTRING
>>>
>>> Then, you give the following (informal context-sensitive) translation
>>> (meta-)rule for expressing this construct in XML (see [3]):
>>>
>>>    unicodestring^^space ==> <Const type="space">unicodestring</Const>
>>>
>>> Note that this EBNF uses two tokens '"' and '"^^' and NOT three tokens
>>> '"', '"', and '^^', so that this begs the question of how what goes in
>>> between '"' and '"^^' gets interpreted (especially ':').
>>>
>>> You give examples of how this is actually used to produce the XML
>>> encoding of the presentation syntax, such as in Example 4 of [4] :
>>>
>>>    "cpt:purchase"^^rif:iri ==> <Const type="rif:iri">cpt:purchase</Const>
>>>
>>> Now, I note the following points in this example:
>>>
>>> a. cpt:purchase (without quotes) is the UNICODESTRING. By that, I
>>>     understand that it is tokenized as a single atomic string (namely,
>>>     the string 'cpt:purchase' where ':' is part of the string).
>>>
>>> b. rif:iri (also without quotes) is also a UNICODESTRING, and thus
>>>     it too is tokenized as a single atomic string.
>>>
>>> The above makes me think that the UNICODESTRING could be anything
>>> not containing special chars (including ':' and such that may have
>>> other special meaning in XML). Am I right ?
>>>
>>> My question: "Is ':' given any special meaning? In other words, is
>>> 'cpt:purchase' an XML local name, or is it that 'cpt' is the XML
>>> namespace and 'purchase' the XML local name ?
>>>
>>> Thanks for clarifying...
>>>
>>> -hak
>>>
>>> References:
>>>
>>> [1]http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD
>>> [2]http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#EBNF_for_the_RIF-BLD_Rule_Language
>>> [3]http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#Translation_of_the_RIF-BLD_Condition_Language
>>> [4]http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#XML_for_the_RIF-BLD_Condition_Language
>>
> 
> 


-- 
Hassan At-Kaci  *  ILOG, Inc. - Product Division R&D
http://koala.ilog.fr/wiki/bin/view/Main/HassanAitKaci

Received on Saturday, 3 May 2008 02:32:20 UTC