Re: Proposal for an additional 'link type' for rdf:type

Ah. No, it was good. It made my gray cell work through the CURIE syntax
again and again, until it becomes part of my blood:-)

Cheers

Ivan

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Hi Ivan,
> 
>> this has nothing to do with the content of your mail but made me ask
>> something else (and it seems that I still get into the CURIE trap
>> time-to-time so I prefer to ask).
>>
>> You write instanceof="[foaf:PersonalProfileDocument]" in all your
>> examples. My understanding is that the value of instanceof (just like
>> @rel, @rev is %QName.datatype; (from the DTD), ie, the '[' is
>> unnecessary in these examples. Is it so that '[' is _allowed_ for cases
>> when the value is CURIE? My current understanding was that safe curies
>> are used when the value is defined to be a URI (ie, for @href,
>> @resource, and @about) but not elsewhere. The syntax document does not
>> make it clear either. (If Safe CURIE is allowed anywhere where QNAME is
>> allowed, then I will have to modify my code, too...).
>>
>> Note that all of our examples uses the distinction I made, so if safe
>> curie is allowed for qname-s, too, we should have this in the various
>> examples.
> 
> Yes, I really do apologise for causing confusion--Niklas spotted that
> too. I began with the @resource example and then cut-and-paste to
> produce the @instanceof examples, but didn't remove the square
> brackets.
> 
> Many apologies...
> 
> Mark
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf