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

RE: CURIEs, xmlns and bandwidth

From: Misha Wolf <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:59:08 +0000
Message-ID: <T74536530e90a01f0191d0c@lonsmime01.rit.reuters.com>
To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, iptc-metadata@yahoogroups.com

Hi Mark,

> > What are the advantages of using xmlns declarations for CURIEs?

> None, really. It was simply that we began with QNames and then 
> evolved from that.

> > As xmlns and QNames are defined by the Namespaces in XML spec, 
> > and as we're not adopting QNames, why should we use xmlns to 
> > declare constructs which are not QNames?

> Sure...and going that route would allow you to add some 
> additional cunning features.

Indeed.  The advantages of using the Schematron syntax rather than 
the xmlns syntax for prefix declarations include:

-  The ability to XInclude the prefix declarations.

-  The ability to group the prefix declarations by taxonomy 
   provider, and XInclude such groups of declarations separately.

-  No problem of tools telling us that these (non-QNames) aren't 
   legal QNames.

-  The ability to add additional attributes to the declarations, 
   should this become useful.  It may be that RDDL will suffice for 
   adding information about schemes (our term for taxonomies), but 
   having the ability to add attributes should these become 
   necessary is good insurance.

> Also, in many of the contexts that I have referred to as 
> 'existing practice' there are no namespaces anyway (software 
> configuration files, Wiki shortcuts, and so on).
> 
> Following on from your comments then, perhaps we should just say 
> that CURIEs are a datatype, but not say anything about where the 
> actual substitutions come from, and let the host language or 
> software context decide that. (So XHTML 2 might choose namespace 
> prefixes, but NewsML might choose some other way.)
> 
> Any thoughts on that?

As we see it, there is no deployed technology that satisfies the 
requirements.  So the IPTC will use CURIEs regradless of their 
adoption by the W3C.

The ideal outcome would be for CURIEs to be used in a uniform way 
across the Web, with a single declaration syntax.

A less-good outcome would be for CURIEs to be used in a uniform way 
across the Web, with more than one declaration syntax.

The worst outcome would be for there to be multiple solutions to 
the overall problem.

Regards,

Misha Wolf
News Standards Manager, Reuters, www.reuters.com
Vice-Chair, News Architecture Working Party, IPTC, www.iptc.org/dev


-----------------------------------------------------------------
        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

To find out more about Reuters Products and Services visit http://www.reuters.com/productinfo 

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.
Received on Monday, 31 October 2005 13:59:46 GMT

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