Re: HTML+RDFa Issues (update)

Manu Sporny wrote:
>> With "urn:rights" there is the problem that the consumer gets the wrong
>> URI, and furthermore there's a real risk that it could get the same
>> string from a different party, trying to identify a *different* link
>> relation.
> 
> Right - but what damage is done at that point? How does that ambiguity
> translate into a fatal error in an application or a logic error in a
> reasoning agent?

I think that's pretty obvious, right? Two different relations would be 
treated as a single one.

> ...
> So, we approached it from the standpoint that not being able to place
> URLs in @rel/@rev is too restrictive and that we should try to change that.

Sounds good.

> I believe the consensus during the call today was on an approach that
> would change the CURIE processing rules such that anything without a
> prefix mapping is understood as a URL by default. This would allow URLs
> to be used in @rel/@rev.

Which is good.

It's still not optimal that adding an xmlns declaration somewhere else 
would affect the semantics, though. (And yes, I understand that the 
problem can only be *fully* resolved by either breaking RDFa or 
URIs-in-rel-values, which is exactly why I did complain loudly one year 
ago).

> ...

BR, Julian