Re: [Gzz] PEG: vocab again

[Tuomas Lukka]

On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 03:51:49PM +0200, Benja Fallenstein wrote:
> 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.

Ok. Basically, the PEG should happen before any developer starts using 
that URI in production data. Happy?

> >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.

How about simply: any official non-lava code must not use 
experimental URIs? It's actually implicit already: non-lava mustn't
depend on lava.

So the lava distinction covers this, I think.

> >>>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.

The "now" says that. But this is now moot, since I've started the other PEG.

> >>>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?

Fine, fixed.

> >>>>- 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?"

Ok, in there now.


        Tuomas