Re: CURIE Processing (Re 2: Updated RDFa Core Editor's Draft available)

On Apr 12, 2010, at 17:21 , Shane McCarron wrote:

[snip]
>> 
>> 
>> With all due respect: do we have this requirement? It is certainly not in our charter;-). If other recommendations want to use CURIE-s they can use the specification in RDFa 1.0...
>> 
>> I guess what I want to say is: if the price for this extra requirement is to confuse the readers of the RDFa 1.1 Core spec, then I am not sure we should go along with that.
>>  
> 
> I appreciate your concern.  As far as I am concerned, this is an absolute requirement.  I know that there are a lot of people in this working group who were not around before, and don't have the history to understand how this came to be.  I could try to write it up, but frankly it comes down to this:  We can't tell people to refer to a Recommendation that we are superseding.  Since 1.1 Supersedes 1.0, we need to keep faith with the consumers of 1.0 as much as possible.  That includes consumers that were using only parts of our document.  Therefore, the CURIE definition needs to remain independent.  It *should* be published in its own Recommendation.  It's a personal failing that I didn't make that happen in the context of the XHTML2 Working Group.  Today the political climate would prevent it.  The only way we can ensure that CURIEs are useful for all the other places they make sense is to have them embedded in our spec and have the definition abstract enough that they can be customized by the other potential users.
> 

Shane, I see your point about the superseding issue. That being said, I wonder whether it would not be better to at least put the CURIE into a separate WG Note somewhere, rather than counting on external parties to refer to a part of a recommendation...

Note that some WG-s decided to pick up the CURIE idea and incorporate it into their document rather then referencing to the RDFa WG. This is what the OWL WG has done, for example, when using the CURIE mechanism in the OWL Functional Syntax. One of the RIF documents refers to CURIE, but as an informational reference and, actually, they refer to the TR CURIE (which may not be absolutely o.k., now that I write these lines...)

Just ideas. Maybe we can reconcile everything...

Ivan


> -- 
> Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
> Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
> ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
> 
> 


----
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