W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007

Re: CURIEs - ISSUE-14

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 17:00:56 +0000
Message-ID: <47470748.5080100@hpl.hp.com>
To: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> 
> I have satisfied myself that my colleagues do not have objection to the 
> proposed resolution, and I am happy to support it.

Ooops - after further feedback, I am afraid I need to modify that.

HP will abstain on this proposal, reflecting that we have some minority 
concerns ...

- there are an excess of WDs with a claimed normative defn of CURIEs 
(the CURIE WD, an RDFa WD, and two XHTML 2.0 WDs)
     + a copy/paste solution would make this worse
- the prefix binding issue that is not addressed with CURIEs is
non-trivial (e.g. early versus late binding).
- tension with the SPARQL not-a-CURIE construct
- at least in the CURIE WD, the empty prefix is prebound to a specific
namespace.
- if we are going to use CURIEs in XML documents (such as the XML 
serialization of the functional syntax), then
     + we should be asking the XML Schema WG to extend the primitive 
base types of XML Schema 1.1 (Datatypes).
     + it is likely that XML tools, such as XSLT, will have difficulty 
in getting the prefix binding correct.
- this TAG issue
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#abbreviatedURIs-56


In light of these concerns I personally would advocate a fairly 
conservative approach, of, at this stage:
- citing the (alegedly moribund) CURIE WD, rather than using copy/paste
- identifying in which contexts we expect users to be using CURIEs, 
rather than URIs.
- letting the TAG know that we are an interested party with respect to 
their issue.

A choice to use CURIEs would make it more difficult for us to advance 
past last call, before the TAG have resolved this issue.

(I don't feel that I can in good faith vote for or against any 
particular resolution, without making a bigger issue of this with my 
colleagues than seems appropriate - so I ask the WG to accept that HP 
will abstain, without making the normally expected efforts to get 
unanimity).

Jeremy
Received on Friday, 23 November 2007 17:01:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:27 GMT