W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: CURIE proposal ...

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:16:44 -0400
To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu (Michael Kifer)
Cc: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1920.1208891804@ubuhebe>


> What you are proposing is even worse than expanding the same
> macro differently in different contexts. Now you are saying that foo:bar
> really stands for "something-long-here", but in some contexts we are not
> allowed to use "something-long-here" instead of foo:bar.

Right.  You can't avoid the short form after the "^^", because then
you'd have an infinite term.    So?   That doesn't seem so bad to me,
personally.  The short form is what people will use in nearly all cases;
the long form is there just for a kind of consistency.

But since you clearly don't like that, we could allow expanded IRIs
without the explicit "^^".  And if we do that, really, the hands down
favorite syntax within languages which use URIs directly is <URI>.  So
we'd have four equivalent forms:

   1.  Point Brackets

         <http://purl.org/dc/terms/creator>

   2.  CURIEs

    	 after:   PREFIX("dc", "http://purl.org/dc/terms/").

         dc:creator

   3.  Data Value (using Pointy Brackets for rif:uri)

         "http://purl.org/dc/terms/creator"^^<http://www.w3.org/2007/rif#iri>

   4.  Data Value (using CURIE rif:uri)

	 after:   PREFIX("rif", "http://www.w3.org/2007/rif#").

         "http://purl.org/dc/terms/creator"^^rif:iri

Does that work for you?

   - s
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 19:18:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:48 GMT