W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > February 2010

Re: CURIEs and blank nodes (Test #140)

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:06:38 +0100
Message-ID: <4B714FCE.6050306@w3.org>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

On 2010-2-9 03:16 , Dan Connolly wrote:
> My code fails Test #140, so I'm checking the spec
> to find out why.
> In section 7. CURIE Syntax Definition
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#s_curies
> we find:
>   A CURIE is a representation of a full URI.
> That contradicts other parts of the spec. I suggest
> making it true by constraining the syntax of CURIEs
> to exclude the _:foo construct.
> The other alternative is to say something like:
>  A CURIE is a representation of either an absolute IRI or a blank node.

I would definitely prefer this one. Excluding the _:xxx would be a
problem. There are some (albeit rare) cases when explicit reference to
blank nodes are necessary (eg, if lists are encoded).

> or fudge it a la:
>  A CURIE typically represents an absolute URI.

I do not have problem with that either.

> (does the RDFa spec exclude IRIs on purpose? It's somewhat lax about
> the difference between a URI (which, strictly speaking, is
> always absolute) and a URI reference (which may be relative). I
> wonder if it similarly uses URI where the standard term is
> actually IRI.)

I guess bringing in the IRI issue may be one of the things that the RDFa
WG will have to settle for 1.1. That being said, the current RDF spec
refer to URI-s only, that may be the reason that RDFa sticked to URI-s

(I must admit that the whole URI/IRI issue never ceases to confuse me. I
should really take some time diving into this one day...)





Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF   : http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
vCard  : http://www.ivan-herman.net/HermanIvan.vcf

Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2010 12:04:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:34 UTC