Re: Fine-tuning CURIEs (reply #2 :-)

Mark Birbeck wrote:
[cut]

> 
> So you are right that we shouldn't use the term 'namespace', and
> anywhere that we do is hopefully just an editing mistake.
> 

In the primer, Purpose and Preliminaries:

[[[
We note that RDFa makes use of XML namespaces. In this document, we
assume, for simplicity's sake, that the following namespaces are
defined: dc for Dublin Core, foaf for FOAF, cc for Creative Commons, and
xsd for XML Schema Definitions:
]]] 

Section 2.5:

[[[
Fortunately, RDFa uses standard XML namespaces, which means that the
vocabularies can be imported "locally" to an XHTML element. Jo's blog
page could express the exact same structured data with the following markup:
]]]

Section 3.1:

[[[
 All field names and data types in RDFa are URIs, e.g.
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title is the "Dublin Core title" field.
In RDFa, we often use compact versions of those URIs, by

    * defining a prefix using XML namespaces, and
    * using the prefixed notation to designate the URI.
]]]


In the syntax document:

Section 2:

[[[
RDFa makes uses of this concept, enhancing it with the ability to make
use of other vocabularies by using namespaces:
]]]
[[[
Although not widely used, HTML already supports the use of @rel and @rev
on the a element. This becomes more useful in RDFa with the addition of
namespace support:
]]]

Processing rules step 1, item 1:
[[[
Authors are advised to follow best practice for using namespaces, which
includes not using relative paths.
]]]

Some of these may be justified (like Primer section 3.1), but we should
be careful

Ivan

> Regards,
> 
> 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