W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > November 2005

Re: CURIEs vs. QNames

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 11:14:28 -0500
Message-Id: <72c1e6c836914cda84558991c7a4e97b@w3.org>
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
To: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>

On Nov 28, 2005, at 9:53 AM, Ben Adida wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2005, at 9:12 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:
>
>> > one of my main arguments in favour of CURIEs is that we
>> > need a way to abbreviate URIs in a manner that has *already* become
>> > established practice via QNames
>>
>>  --  
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Nov/ 
>> 0021
>>
>> Who is the "we" there? Is this requirement really established?
>
> "we" is the sense of the task force after months of thinking about  
> requirements from customers like the IPTC. This has been documented on  
> the mailing list,

Really? I don't believe so. I've seen comments from individuals, but I  
don't recall the taskforce as a whole giving a position on this. But I  
may have lost track of how the taskforce makes decisions (which is easy  
to do, since the only charter(s) I can find are expired.
http://www.w3.org/2003/08/rdf-in-xhtml-charter.html#_Duration )

>  and we're trying to find the time to put together all the pointers  
> that clarify this requirement from all of our discussions and input  
> from customers over the past 6 months.

I look forward to more of that.

It's risky to get into detailed design discussion in advance of having  
requirements clear. Sometimes it's a good risk to take, but sometimes  
not.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 28 November 2005 16:15:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:00 GMT