Re: an issue with prefix-less curies (also comment on the syntax document)

Actually, I like that. It avoids any further conflicts with other groups
and, as far as RDFa is concerned, it is clean.

Ivan

Niklas Lindström wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Mostly thinking out loud here; I hope I'm not confusing things.
> 
> I wonder -- since this is in fact the introduction of a new set of
> URIs for the unprefixed names in @rel -- would there be any merit in
> distinguish it a bit more from the (namespace) URI of the xhtml
> doctype? Like:
> 
>     <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/relations#>
> 
> (I've also thought about how unprefixed names relates to an eventual
> @profile, since that seems to be what (at least normatively) defines
> what names are "imported" to the non-prefixed "space". But that is
> probably another discussion, and possibly not crucial.)
> 
> Best regards,
> Niklas
> 
> 
> On 9/26/07, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>> :-)
>>
>> I have no real opinion on whether we use '#' or '/', to be honest.
>> Maybe, indeed, '#' is cleaner and quicker to install. As you say, one of
>> the two is indeed necessary.
>>
>> In any case, you should also update the document at
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-rdfa-syntax-20070921/#s_rdfaindetail
>>
>> to make it consistent.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>> Mark Birbeck wrote:
>>> Hi Ivan,
>>>
>>> Sorry about this, but I included a solution to this in the syntax
>>> spec, and forgot to mention it!
>>>
>>> (I'm not sure if that makes me one of Michael's good guys, or his bad guys...)
>>>
>>> Anyway, if you look here:
>>>
>>>   <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-rdfa-syntax-20070918/#s_curies>
>>>
>>> you'll see that we have the following:
>>>
>>> <blockquote>
>>> To evaluate CURIEs during processing the following context needs to be set:
>>>
>>>     [snip]
>>>
>>>     * a mapping to use when there is no prefix (for example, p);
>>>
>>>       The mapping to use when there is no prefix is
>>> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml#.
>>> </blockquote>
>>>
>>> As you can see, this suggests that the default namespace should have
>>> '#' added to the end of the normal XHTML namespace.
>>>
>>> I intended to draw attention to this addition--honest. The fact that I
>>> didn't certainly doesn't mean that it is set in stone, and we could
>>> easily change the URI to use '/' if everyone wanted to. But I think
>>> it's generally agreed that we need _something_ at the end of the URI
>>> (as you also seem to be saying), and when dealing with small
>>> vocabularies I think it is generally agreed that the '#' version is
>>> the easiest to set-up and manage (again, as you also seem to be
>>> saying).
>>>
>>> So, first, apologies for forgetting to mention this, but second,
>>> perhaps we can just open an issue, get a quick vote on '#' or '/' and
>>> then close it again?
>>>
>>> BTW, it's good to hear that you've been talking with Tim about RDFa. :)
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>> On 25/09/2007, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>>> No, I do not want to go into the core discussion:-), this is something
>>>> else.
>>>>
>>>> I had a chat with TimBL this afternoon on RDFa and he made me realize
>>>> something. Say we have the rel="next" somewhere. This is one of the
>>>> reserved properties, so I think we all agree that the RDFa processor
>>>> would generate the xhtml:next property in the RDF graph. Some small
>>>> issues with that, though
>>>>
>>>> - the current syntax document defines the xhtml namespace as:
>>>>
>>>>         http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
>>>>
>>>> if the simple CURIE rules are used, that means that the CURIE above will
>>>> expand to
>>>>
>>>>         http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtmlnext
>>>>
>>>> which is certainly not what we want. So what namespace should be used?
>>>> At the moment, if I type in
>>>>
>>>>         http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
>>>>
>>>> in my browser, it seems to redirect to
>>>>
>>>>         http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/
>>>>
>>>> is this the namespace we should use? Or is it
>>>>
>>>>         http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml#
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> - In both cases we get a number of URI-s for the predefined XHTML @rel
>>>> values. Either
>>>>
>>>>         http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/next
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>>         http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml#next
>>>>
>>>> In a nice world both URI-s should be dereferencable... The second one
>>>> does, in the sense that it will return something (but the #next will be
>>>> forgotten), whereas the first one will yield a 404....:-(
>>>>
>>>> Nothing serious here, but we should probably decide what the final URI-s
>>>> should be for the predefined @rel/@property values, set up a minimal
>>>> infrastructure to make those URIs dereferencable and set the namespace
>>>> accordingly...
>>>>
>>>> Ivan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> --
>>
>> 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
>>
>>

-- 

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