W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > February 2006

Summary of Options for Issue #5

From: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 19:47:31 -0500
Message-Id: <04D99C7B-5A15-4C4E-88D1-DFE6E1264533@mit.edu>
To: public-rdf-in-xhtml task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>


Hi all,

Considering Issue #5
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-current-issues#bnode

We have been assuming that _:foo as a CURIE would simply be a bnode.  
However, "_" is a valid XMLNS, so this presents a problem. It would  
be best if any QNAME would be parsed exactly the same way when parsed  
as a CURIE. (We note that this means N3 has ambiguities in its use of  
the same syntax.)

We have two options on the table:

A) Use a different prefix than '_', such as '#'

#:foo is a bnode named foo.

Note that this is conceptually similar to a local XHTML identifier,  
#foo. #foo is not the same as #:foo, but the locality idea is similar.

B) Use NO prefix

:foo is a bnode named foo.

This conflicts with N3's use of that syntax, which assumes the  
default namespace. In CURIEs, "foo" is in the default namespace.


There was also discussion about other possibilities than the []  
syntax for separating URIs from CURIEs. In particular, we discussed  
using "@" as a prefix. This part of the discussion wasn't finished  
during the telecon, so we should continue it on this mailing list!

Please send comments, and let's try to resolve this issue in the near  
future, using emails and telecons.

-Ben
Received on Sunday, 19 February 2006 00:47:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:20 UTC