- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:25:34 +0200
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- CC: RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
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
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2009 17:26:24 UTC