- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 01:47:42 -0400
- To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hassan_A=EFt-Kaci?= <hak@ilog.com>
- Cc: "Boley\, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, "Public-Rif-Wg \(E-mail\)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
XML does not understand curie macros, so rif:iri is just that for XML. In the presentation syntax, rif:iri is not a "rif:iri" but a macro that expands into something long. So, the earlier use of rif:iri and similar in XML was actually a mistake. XML uses entities as a similar macro device. A number of standards (incl OWL) use curies in their abstract syntax examples and entities in XML examples. --michael > 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 Aït-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 Aït-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 Aït-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 Aït-Kaci * ILOG, Inc. - Product Division R&D > http://koala.ilog.fr/wiki/bin/view/Main/HassanAitKaci > > > >
Received on Saturday, 3 May 2008 05:48:26 UTC