W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > June 2010

Re: ISSUE 27: Proposal regarding use of relative URIs in the datatype TERMorCURIEorURI

From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 23:53:44 +0100
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100629235344.6287a98e@miranda.g5n.co.uk>
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:13:46 -0500
Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote:

> Consider the following:
> 
>    1. A TERM is visually indistinguishable from a relative URI.
>    2. If relative URIs are permitted, there is NO way to flag an
> illegal token during parsing.  Every string that matches the
> production(s) will result in a triple.
>    3. There are no compelling use cases for supporting relative URIs -
>       at least not in the places where this datatype is used.
>    4. Excluding relative URIs makes explaining how this datatype works
>       easier, and therefore can reduce the barrier to adoption.

Agreed. I'd like to add to this list:

5. It would be nice to have some lexical space in @property, @rel,
@rev, etc that RDFa 1.1 leaves undefined and RDFa 1.1 processors are
required to ignore - this provides future versions of RDFa with scope
to improve these attributes. (e.g. allowing SPARQL-1.1-style property
paths.)

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2010 22:55:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:06 GMT