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: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:34:14 -0400
Message-ID: <4C2A9106.7080809@digitalbazaar.com>
To: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On 06/29/2010 06:53 PM, Toby Inkster wrote:
> 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.)

The argument that was convincing to me (last week) was that we need to
create some language one way or the other, we had a use case (even
though it wasn't very compelling), and restricting it didn't seem like
it would accomplish anything.

Given the even more compelling list of items above and the lack of a
very compelling use case for relative URIs in all RDFa attributes, I
agree with Shane and Toby.

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Myth Busting Web Stacks - PHP is Faster Than You Think
Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2010 00:34:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:47 UTC