W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2006

on URI abbreviation [was: RE: Objection to Debate Scheduling]

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 09:46:24 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20060421093744.032bdfc0@127.0.0.1>
To: "Mark Birbeck" <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
Cc: <Vincent.Quint@inrialpes.fr>, <www-tag@w3.org>, <djweitzner@w3.org>, <em@w3.org>, <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, <connolly@w3.org>, <steve@w3.org>, <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, <dwood@tucanatech.com>, <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "'Ben Adida'" <ben@mit.edu>

At 01:24 PM 4/21/2006 +0100, Mark Birbeck wrote:
>... I would suggest that CURIEs is discussed in the context of the *already
>existing* QName problem, and not as some kind of upstart looking to rock the
>boat, and in that context I recommend to anyone who might be involved in
>that discussion that they look at the references below.

Thanks, Mark.  You have summarized the background
very well.

...
> * a mechanism is needed in many different specs
>   to abbreviate URIs that is independent of XML,
>   and this mechanism should be able to cope with
>   *all* URIs.

Note too, that during the original RDF 1.0 Working Group
process we debated whether or not to declare rdf:about
and rdf:resource to permit QName or some other URI
abbreviation mechanism.  We decided that as XML did
not (at that time) endorse use of QNames within attribute
values that RDF should not push that frontier.  Furthermore,
we decided that this was a more general issue for XML
and that RDF should not define its own URI abbreviation
solution.  We further noted that applications that were
negatively affected by this decision could resort to using
XML entities.

So, for 7 years RDF users have had to use full URIs
in all rdf:about and rdf:resource values.

-Ralph
Received on Friday, 21 April 2006 13:46:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:39 GMT