W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > April 2008

ISSUE-103: Last Call Comment: a URI-centric approach to CURIEs

From: SWD Issue Tracker <dean+cgi@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 01:44:14 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-swd-wg@w3.org,public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Message-Id: <20080403014414.303F3BF63@nelson.w3.org>


ISSUE-103: Last Call Comment: a URI-centric approach to CURIEs

http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/103

Raised by: Ben Adida
On product: RDFa

brought up by Jonathan Rees in [1]:

"""
Hal Abelson of MIT pointed out to me that the [...] syntax
    effectively introduces a new kind of URI - it extends the URI space.
    However, we already have a standard way to extend the URI space,
    namely the creation of new URI schemes.  Did you consider doing this
    (curie:prefix:suffix or cu:prefix:suffix or ...)?  It would have
    some advantages over [...]:

    . it would eliminate the need for a new URIor[safe]CURIE datatype
      since you could just use URI

    . it would protect against possible conflicting future extensions of
      the URI space that include [...]

    . it would avoid ambiguity with relative URIrefs that happen to be
      spelled [...]

    . it would avoid setting a precedent; by introducing [...] you
      pave the way for other notations that extend URI syntax in other
      ways, e.g. {...}, <...>

    I know this makes the mapping of the lexical space to the value
    space for the URI datatype context-sensitive (in the same way that
    the mapping for URIor[safe]CURIE is).  I haven't worked through the
    implications of this.
"""

This requires further discussion.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Mar/0294.html
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 01:44:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:27 UTC