W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > January 2011

Re: CURIEs: cite RDFa Core or CURIE WG Note?

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 16:16:54 -0600
Message-ID: <4D3762D6.1060403@aptest.com>
To: Christoph LANGE <ch.lange@jacobs-university.de>
CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Well... you should in no circumstances cite the CURIE Note.  It's dead.  
The RDFa Core document is a work in progress, but if you are referencing 
RDFa 1.1 anyway I think it is safe to talk about RDFa Core (and 
XHTML+RDFa).  You might also note that the only normative definition 
TODAY is RDFa Syntax if your audience cares about such things.

On 1/19/2011 3:34 PM, Christoph LANGE wrote:
> Hi Shane,
>
> 2011-01-19 22:09 Shane McCarron:
>> The only recommendation out today is rdfa-syntax.  I would cite that.
>> Once RDFa Core is a recommendation, I would switch and cite that.
> Thanks!  I should have said, though, that in the context where I would
> like to cite something about CURIEs I cover pretty recent stuff anyway
> (e.g. also including RDFa 1.1).  From that point of view, would you
> rather recommend citing the CURIE Note, or the RDFa Core Working Draft 
> or, still, the RDFa (1.0) Syntax Recommendation?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christoph
>

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2011 22:17:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:08 GMT