From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 06/28/04
From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> Subject: Re: XML syntax for SWRL Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 00:32:07 -0400 > > > >This might be a good reason in some cases, but I don't see how it helps at > > >all for names of variables. > > > > I don't think variable names is one of the places where it's most crucial > > to be extensible. > > I was addressing the general point. That said... > > Wrt names, more generally (e.g., predicate names), suppose one decided > > later to have multiple parts/aspects to the name, > > e.g., an additional prefix name cf. namespaces or Prolog modules, or local > > name and global name, etc. > > It's easy to make a name an element (instead of an attribute) in the > > design, so why not; > > to do so preserves flexibility at little or no cost. > ... > > As go names in general, why not be uniform in the design and treat variable > > names in a similar fashion. > > Another reason I've heard is to allow language markup, eg to support > screen readers. The variable name "channel" would be pronounced by > text-to-speech software quite differently if language-tagged "fr" vs > "en". > > It seems far-fetched to me to imagine this mattering very much for > SWRL [wouldn't you want the names pronouned in your language anyway, > or something?], but it is a non-dart reason I've heard. > > -- sandro This seems to me to be so far-fetched as to be negative. A variable name is just like an RDF ID, so why then are RDF IDs attributes? peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 06/28/04 EST