[tap-l] User Supplied Ontologies

[Ovid]

--- Eric Wilhelm <scratchcomputing at gmail.com> wrote:

> # from Ovid
> # on Friday 18 April 2008 03:18:
> 
> >> That said, here's a refinement: TAP keys (presumably the most
> >> common keys) don't have prefixes.  Other keys do.  80% solution to
> >> readability, and a kind of pressure to TAP producers to
> standardize
> >> their keys.
> >
> >That satisfies my desire for an 'X-' prefix and limits the problem
> >space to a manageable level, though from chromatic's arguments, I
> see
> >that this is doesn't solve the 'global namespace' problem.
> 
> What if none of the official tap keys ever contained a '.'?  Could we
> live with that?  Users can then prefix their keys with whatever they 
> want, including 'foo.' for project foo.  Yes, a trailing '.' would
> work 
> in that case (m/\./), but I don't think TAP needs to dictate 
> readability -- perhaps it is enough to recommend a leading '.' in the

> case of "too lazy/don't care to think of a prefix".

I can live with this.  It's easy to read (I think), and we can have a
'recommends' for namespaces/prefixes and outline the reasoning, but
allow people to leave it off to keep Schwern happy ;)  This can allow
people to have their namespaces, not dictate a structure, and perhaps
let things evolve to something which works.

Any issues with this approach?

Cheers,
Ovid

--
Buy the book  - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/
Perl and CGI  - http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/
Personal blog - http://publius-ovidius.livejournal.com/
Tech blog     - http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/