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

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

From: Christoph LANGE <ch.lange@jacobs-university.de>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 23:34:24 +0100
Message-ID: <4D3766F0.6030706@jacobs-university.de>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Hi Shane,

thanks once more!

2011-01-19 23:16 Shane McCarron:
> Well... you should in no circumstances cite the CURIE Note.  It's dead.

I had actually thought so, but the recent date 2010-12-16 confused me.
(But now I guess that's merely the date when the almost-dead CURIE draft
was "archived" as a Note…)  Anyway, the CURIE Note should probably have
a pointer to RDFa Syntax 1.0 and RDFa Core 1.1, referring to them as
more appropriate sources of information.  Just in case someone
accidentally stumbles upon the CURIE Note.

> 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.

No worries about that – my audience does not care.



Christoph Lange, Jacobs Univ. Bremen, http://kwarc.info/clange, Skype
Semantic Publication workshop, May 29 or May 30, Hersonissos, Crete, Greece
Submission deadline February 28, http://SePublica.mywikipaper.org

Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2011 22:34:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:50 UTC