W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > May 2008

RE: XMLification of presentation syntax

From: Boley, Harold <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 22:31:36 -0400
Message-ID: <E4D07AB09F5F044299333C8D0FEB45E904FFE032@nrccenexb1.nrc.ca>
To: Hassan At-Kaci <hak@ilog.com>
Cc: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

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:
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.


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:07:44 UTC