[tap-l] User Supplied Ontologies
publiustemp-tapx at yahoo.com
Fri Apr 18 17:35:11 UTC 2008
--- 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
> >> 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
> >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
> 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?
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/
More information about the tap-l