- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 18:44:03 -0400
- To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Ok. If this is indeed clear and this is the group's decision after discussions, then of course I am fine. Ivan ---- Ivan Herman +31 641044153 (Written on my mobile. Excuses for brevity and frequent misspellings...) On 16 Oct 2012, at 18:37, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > Hi Ivan > > Response below. > > On 16/10/12 15:49, Ivan Herman wrote: >> Luc, >> >> I am happy with the other changes, but I still have question on the namespace issue. See below >> >> >> On Oct 16, 2012, at 07:40 , Luc Moreau wrote: >> [skip] >>>> - 3.4.7, Namespace declaration: >>>> >>>> - minor buglet: in the bulleted item either both lines should begin with capital 'T' or none of the two >>>> - I do not understand this sentence: >>>> "the scope of a namespace declaration directly occurring in a toplevel >>>> bundle is the toplevel bundle itself, except and namedBundle it may contain". >>>> I presume what it wants to say is that a namespace declaration in a named bundle has priority over the namespace declaration in the top level bundle and somehow the editing went wrong… >>> I have fixed the typo and edited the scoping rule. Hopefully, this clarifies this issue. >> first of all, exclunding -> excluding > > Fixed. >> >> But just to be clear about the intention. The way I understand the current sentence: >> >> [[[ >> The scope of a namespace declaration directly occurring in a document is the document itself, exclunding the bundles it may contain >> ]]] >> >> is that, in case of >> >> document >> prefix a <http:...> >> ... >> bundle abcde >> ... a:something ... >> endBundle >> endDocument >> >> the usage of 'a:something' is illegal. I am a bit surprised by this definition; usually (eg, in the trig-in-preparation) the prefix declarations given on the top are valid for the whole document, but you may have had good reasons for this restrictions that was discussed before I joined the group. Ie, I will not object to that, but just wanted to be sure that we do have the same understanding. > Your interpretation is correct. > > There was a very *strong* push back by several WG members against any notion of scope related to bundles. So, we adopted > this solution that makes bundles in prov-n totally self-contained. > The downside is that we can't inherit a prefix from a document, instead we have to replicate the prefix declaration. > The good thing is that bundles are totally independent, and this fact is exploited in prov-constraints. > > Luc. > > >> Ivan >> >> >> >> >>> Regards, >>> Luc >>> >>>> Ivan >>>> >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead >>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf >>> -- >>> Professor Luc Moreau >>> Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 >>> University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 >>> Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk >>> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm >> >> ---- >> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > > -- > Professor Luc Moreau > Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 > University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 > Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk > United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm >
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2012 22:45:21 UTC