|
From: | Benja Fallenstein |
Subject: | Re: [Gzz] PEG: vocab again |
Date: | Mon, 12 May 2003 15:09:33 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030430 Debian/1.3-5 |
Tuomas Lukka wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 01:51:38PM +0200, Benja Fallenstein wrote:Tuomas Lukka wrote:- Is it ok to have a separate namespace for experimental things? RESOLVED: Yes, conversion can be automated / done with inference. Any URI in the experimental space should not be widely used before being properly defined and accepted. It is desirable to be able to *see* from the URI which data is stable, which is not, without having to look at the definitions. For example, grepping for the experimental ns from a file would give you a good idea whether your data is based on stable code. The idea is also that conversion wouldn't be too often necessary:the move from lava to real wouldn't require too much work, just a PEGround.Please explain how you think a typical situation would work. When would the vocab be pegged? Why wouldn't conversion be necessary?Ok, let's take the RST canvas as an example. Mudyc puts in his sketches in the vocab file and tries things. Once things start working well enough to start thinking of integrating it into fenfire proper, he PEGs the vocabulary. The data model can be defined and finalized before the code that uses it.
When and how would conversion be done? When would it be unnecessary, and why? This is the issue here.
Do you want clarifs in the PEG?
Let's clarify it here first.
For instance, a spatial canvas is a reasonable unit: there is a canvas, it contains certain nodes at certain locations. However, the PP links (now dLinks) or xu links (now CLinks) between different canvases do not actually belong in the same place; they are orthogonalto the spatial structure.Could you please not make references to 'dLinks' and 'CLinks' before defining them? I feel like you're assuming I know something that I can't know yet.I did state the earlier concepts that were renamed - this actually does define them.
Where?
I think the PP link / xu link / dLink / CLink renaming&philosophy stuff also deserves an own PEG which should be resolved before finalizing these vocabularies.Do you oppose the name change?
I think there can be more descriptive names, so yes, I think I oppose it. But as I said, I think this should be an own PEG and thread of discussion.
- Data type of the literal?Says "an enfilade parseable by alph". Need more?
That's not a datatype-- alph doesn't know datatypes, it could even parse a (malformed) int-datatype literal that contains the XML serialization of an enfilade.
The old version of RDF distinguished string and XML literals; the new version, which has been in last call, will have an optional datatype URI associated with each literal, and one of these URIs will signify XML literals. See the specs at w3.org.
- It should be clear from this what the URIs of the terms are. Giving the namespace URI would suffice.Do you want it in the javadoc or is a String inside FF sufficient?
String, I think. - Benja
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |