Re: XMLification of presentation syntax

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