- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:07:35 +0100
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
- CC: W3C RDFa task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote: > Mark Birbeck wrote: >> Hi Julian, >> >> Thanks for this. >> >> The changes I'm proposing do actually give us 'URIorCURIEorSafeCURIE' >> everywhere. > > Ah, I missed the "...orSafeCURIE". > >> :) >> >> It's just that since a CURIE is /either/ a [CURIE] or a [safe CURIE], >> I figured that using the name 'URIorCURIE' rather than >> 'URIorCURIEorSafeCURIE', to represent this in the prose, would be >> acceptable. >> >> In other words, the functionality is definitely as you describe -- >> i.e., it is backwards-compatible -- it's just that the short name I've >> used collapses the two types of CURIE into one, more general notion, >> of a CURIE. >> >> But if there's a feeling that this might confuse people, and that we >> should use the longer term, then I don't have a problem with that >> either. >> ... > > I was confused, so my assumption would be that others will be confused > as well. > ... Having said that... URIs and CURIEs use the same lexical space. On the other hand, Safe-CURIEs have been designed to they never conflict with URIs. If you are going to allow all three notations in the same place, you may want to give advice which to use. I *think* the best advice would be to use either URIs or Safe-CURIEs, and to avoid CURIEs. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 26 November 2009 14:08:16 UTC