Re: [Gzz] PEG: vocab again

[Benja Fallenstein]

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 
> > >   PEG
> > >   round.
> >
> > 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 orthogonal
> > > to 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