Re: CURIEs - ISSUE-14

Just to clarify the current situation:

- The CURIE WD[1] is, well, moribund indeed. It is not clear whether the
XHTML2 WG will ever go down the full Recommendation route with it and,
if yes, when.

- The RDFa syntax document[2] has included a full definition of CURIE-s
because it wanted to avoid a dependency on the CURIE WD and jeopardize
its advancement to a Recommendation. The current plan is to have RDFa as
a Rec sometimes early spring (April?) 2008.

Note, however, that _if_ [1] does become a Recommendation, the goal is
to be strictly compatible with [2] (they have the same editors,
actually...). Jeremy, I am not sure which 'two XHTML2.0 WDs' you were
referring additionally to [1] and [2]. To the best of my knowledge, [1]
supersedes any other CURIE-related work in the XHTML2 WG.

For the OWL WG referring to [2] seems, at the moment, to be a safe bet,
although the definition of prefix must be defined separately for the OWL
functional syntax (RDFa relies on the XML syntax).

I hope this helps

Ivan


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/curie
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax

Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>
>>
>> I have satisfied myself that my colleagues do not have objection to
>> the proposed resolution, and I am happy to support it.
> 
> Ooops - after further feedback, I am afraid I need to modify that.
> 
> HP will abstain on this proposal, reflecting that we have some minority
> concerns ...
> 
> - there are an excess of WDs with a claimed normative defn of CURIEs
> (the CURIE WD, an RDFa WD, and two XHTML 2.0 WDs)
>     + a copy/paste solution would make this worse
> - the prefix binding issue that is not addressed with CURIEs is
> non-trivial (e.g. early versus late binding).
> - tension with the SPARQL not-a-CURIE construct
> - at least in the CURIE WD, the empty prefix is prebound to a specific
> namespace.
> - if we are going to use CURIEs in XML documents (such as the XML
> serialization of the functional syntax), then
>     + we should be asking the XML Schema WG to extend the primitive base
> types of XML Schema 1.1 (Datatypes).
>     + it is likely that XML tools, such as XSLT, will have difficulty in
> getting the prefix binding correct.
> - this TAG issue
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#abbreviatedURIs-56
> 
> 
> In light of these concerns I personally would advocate a fairly
> conservative approach, of, at this stage:
> - citing the (alegedly moribund) CURIE WD, rather than using copy/paste
> - identifying in which contexts we expect users to be using CURIEs,
> rather than URIs.
> - letting the TAG know that we are an interested party with respect to
> their issue.
> 
> A choice to use CURIEs would make it more difficult for us to advance
> past last call, before the TAG have resolved this issue.
> 
> (I don't feel that I can in good faith vote for or against any
> particular resolution, without making a bigger issue of this with my
> colleagues than seems appropriate - so I ask the WG to accept that HP
> will abstain, without making the normally expected efforts to get
> unanimity).
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf