W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > December 2007

Re: CURIE section in syntax spec

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:01:20 +0000
Message-ID: <a707f8300712100701k2b52201ei88396064d700f80c@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Thomas Baker" <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>
Cc: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Hi Thomas,

CURIEs are an important part of RDFa, and the 'decoupling' that we're
talking about is purely in relation to the progression of
specifications through the W3C process. Since both the CURIEs and RDFa
documents are at roughly the same stage, having one refer to the other
is difficult.

So to be clear, the decision to 'decouple' was not because there are
any problems with the CURIEs specification per se, but simply that it
would be impossible to get CURIEs sufficiently far enough ahead of
RDFa in the W3C process, that the latter could refer to CURIEs 'by
reference'. Having a new draft of CURIEs was always planned, but
doesn't change the situation, since it still remains insufficiently
advanced through the process.

It is fully the intention to ensure that there is complete consistency
between the two documents, and future versions of RDFa will be able to
refer to the CURIEs specification 'by reference', rather than by
cutting and pasting the prose.

Regards,

Mark

On 10/12/2007, Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 02:10:39PM +0000, Mark Birbeck wrote:
> > The resolution from that meeting was actually to decouple the RDFa and
> > CURIEs specifications. The part you are linking to about making a
> > decision in December appeared earlier in the discussion, before that
> > decision was made.
>
> My understanding was in fact that the specifications would
> be decoupled - I just wanted to confirm that the release of [3]
> has not changed those plans.
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 10/12/2007, Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > In Amsterdam, it was noted [1] that a decision needed to be
> > > taken in December on whether to keep the section on CURIEs
> > > [2] in the spec or not.  I see that in the meantime, CURIE
> > > Syntax 1.0 has been released [3].
> > >
> > > What is the current plan?
> > >
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-irc#T07-52-52
> > > [2] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-rdfa-syntax-20070927/#s_curies
> > > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126/
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>
> > > W3C Semantic Web Deployment Working Group
> > > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >   Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer
> >
> >   mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
> >   http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com
> >
> >   standards. innovation.
>
> --
> Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>
> W3C Semantic Web Deployment Working Group
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/
>
>


-- 
  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer

  mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  standards. innovation.
Received on Monday, 10 December 2007 15:01:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:19 GMT