Re: [Gzz] PEG: vocab again

[Benja Fallenstein]

Tuomas Lukka wrote:
> > When and how would conversion be done? When would it be unnecessary, 
> > and why? This is the issue here.
>
> In the scenario above it would be unnecessary; when real code starts
> hitting the tree, the PEG has already been made.
>
> We could define "no code in the default code paths of a
> stable release shall use EXPERIMENTAL URIs",
> would that satisfy you?

I thought this is a given. If it isn't, it should be defined. It does 
not resolve the issue, which is: When and how does data using 
EXPERIMENTAL URIs get converted?

> The people using devel stuff can take care of converting.

I am a person using devel stuff. Therefore, I want to know what this 
would inflict on me if it goes through.

> As to how, there are several options.

This is not an answer.

One possibility is to define that code using URIs from lava should 
*never be used* except for testing purposes-- anybody who ignores this 
must take of converting themselves. If you want to do that, you should 
explain which conventions prevent developers from using such code 
accidentally.

> > > I did state the earlier concepts that were renamed - this actually
> > > does define them.
> >
> > Where?
>
>         PP links (now dLinks) or xu links (now CLinks)
>
> This defines "dLink == PP link, CLink = xu link".

Where do you say the concepts were renamed? The above implies that, but 
doesn't say it, nor give the reasons for it. That was the point.

> > > 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.
>
> Ok, what do you suggest?

XML literal?

> > > > - 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.
>
> Why? What is it needed for?

Huh?

"It should be clear what the URIs of the terms are." -- "Is a String 
inside FF sufficient for you?" -- "Yes." -- "Why? What is it needed for?"

- Benja