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

Re: quick ping - ISSUE-104

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:13:56 -0500
Message-ID: <48B97FD4.3000502@aptest.com>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
CC: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>

First, I have to apologize.  I thought I had responded on this issue. 
What I did was push the issue into the CURIE spec space because there 
was a similar comment there.  I then resolved the comment in the context 
of that spec and did not close the loop with you.  This is what happens 
when I rely upon a personal task management system, then don't put all 
my tasks into it.  Pathetic.

Second, you are correct in asserting that there should be no conflict 
between the CURIE spec and the RDFa spec's use of CURIEs.  We have been 
very careful to develop these in lockstep.  To respond to your specific 
concern:

Instead of putting the definition in Appendix B, we put it in section 7. 
CURIE Syntax Definition.[1]  The specification reads:

"Note that while the /lexical space/ of a CURIE is as defined in curie 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#P_curie> above, the /value space/ is 
the set of IRIs."

This is exactly the same as the draft CURIE specification[2], and is in 
the same place to help ensure that the definitions are consistent.  At 
the present time, we believe there are no conflicts between these two 
specifications with regard to the definition of CURIEs and their use.  I 
hope that this resolves your comment in issue 104 to your satisfaction.

To address the underlying question you seem to be posing...  a CURIE is 
a syntactic short-hand for an IRI.  So the value space for the two 
datatypes you reference, CURIE and URIorSafeCURIE, are exactly the 
same.  The set of IRIs. 

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#s_curies
[2] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-curie-20080617/#s_syntax

Jonathan Rees wrote:
>
> I never heard back from you on this issue. It appears that it was 
> closed without any action being taken. The RDFa candidate rec and the 
> CURIE WD seem to disagree on what the CURIE value space is, meaning 
> that the resolution of 2008-06-12 was not taken or was incompletely 
> implemented. There is no indication (that I found) in the RDFa 
> candidate of what the value space of URIorSafeCURIE is. I would think 
> it reasonable to suppose it is the same as, or a superset of, 
> xsd:anyURI, but that may make it incompatible with the CURIE value 
> space (which I also would have assumed to be the same as the value 
> space of xsd:anyURI... but apparently it's not).
>
> I say "seem to" and "may" because I don't really understand the 
> technical details around URIs, IRIs, and the anyURI value space 
> (whatever that may be) well enough to say. Perhaps Noah can help out 
> here.
>
> Although this seems arcane, there are situations in which the value 
> space issue matters a lot; e.g. it is being examined in relation to 
> OWL 2 semantics right now. A little care now will prevent many 
> headaches later. I urged you to be more explicit and wordy before, and 
> I continue to do so.
>
> (I am not speaking for the TAG but I hereby acknowledge the influence 
> of other TAG members on this topic.)
>
> Jonathan
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/
>
> On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:33 AM, Shane McCarron wrote:
>
>> Thanks for making your request clear.  I will discuss this with the 
>> editing team and we will get back to you.
>>
>> Jonathan Rees wrote:
>>>
>>> OK, then please make sure that Appendix B of the RDFa Syntax and 
>>> Processing spec has definite statements about the value spaces of 
>>> BOTH of your new datatypes, CURIE and URIorSafeCURIE. Being 
>>> especially clear on the difference between the QName and CURIE value 
>>> spaces, and the similarities or differences betweeen anyURI and 
>>> URIorSafeCURIE value spaces, in this part of the document, seems 
>>> pretty important.
>>>
>>> Not that I understand this stuff all that well, but there seems to 
>>> be so much potential for confusion that I don't think you can overdo 
>>> the explanations here.
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>> On Jun 16, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Shane McCarron wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jonathan Rees wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 16, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Shane McCarron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I misunderstood your request.  We have defined the lexical 
>>>>>> and value space for CURIEs in the CURIE spec itself 
>>>>>> (http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts#curie for the latest draft).   
>>>>>> For a variety of reasons the RDFa spec does not reference the 
>>>>>> CURIE spec.  If I understand your request, you would like the 
>>>>>> text about CURIE lexical and value space copied into the RDFa 
>>>>>> specification.  Is that correct?
>>>>>
>>>>> I found nothing relevant in Appendix A here:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-curie-20080506
>>>>>
>>>>> so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
>>>> Agreed - the definition of those spaces is in the normative section 
>>>> 3, and is stated as:
>>>>
>>>>> The concatenation of the prefix value associated with a CURIE and 
>>>>> its |reference| MUST be an IRI (as defined by the IRI production 
>>>>> in [IRI <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-curie-20080506/#ref_IRI>]). 
>>>>> Note that while the set of IRIs represents the /lexical space/ of 
>>>>> a CURIE, the /value space/ is the set of URIs (IRIs after 
>>>>> canonicalization - see [IRI 
>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-curie-20080506/#ref_IRI>]).
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether either document can cite the other depends on their 
>>>>> publication schedule. I don't advise having a recommendation cite 
>>>>> a draft.
>>>> Quite.  The publication schedules are disjoint, which is one of the 
>>>> reasons the two are not coupled together.
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
>>>> Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
>>>> ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
>> Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
>> ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
>>
>>
>

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Saturday, 30 August 2008 17:16:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:29 UTC