- From: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 09:53:50 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
On Nov 28, 2005, at 9:12 AM, Dan Connolly wrote: > > one of my main arguments in favour of CURIEs is that we > > need a way to abbreviate URIs in a manner that has *already* become > > established practice via QNames > > -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/ > 2005Nov/0021 > > Who is the "we" there? Is this requirement really established? "we" is the sense of the task force after months of thinking about requirements from customers like the IPTC. This has been documented on the mailing list, and we're trying to find the time to put together all the pointers that clarify this requirement from all of our discussions and input from customers over the past 6 months. > I don't need a new standardized way to abbreviate URIs. > There's XML base, &entities; (ugh), relative URI references, and > even local short-hands > that I can transform via XSLT/GRDDL. None of these solutions come even close to solving the problem of expressing mildly interesting RDF in XHTML. XML base and Relative URIs expect all abbreviated properties and elements in a single statement to live at the same location. Note also that we cannot assume GRDDL as the mechanism to solve all of our problems. > So whoever "we" is, count me out. We owe the community more details about the requirement, but the solutions you bring up above don't seem relevant. What's surprising to me is that there is this enormous conflict between QNames and URIs which no one seems willing to solve. Frankly, I'd rather we, as a task force, *not* be forced to solve it, but I see no other way to do our job. For years we've been stuck with the Qname/URI conflict, a classic example of syntax-driven design. For years this has been mostly ignored, because when the need for a URI abbreviation arose in XHTML, it was almost always a URI at the current host, in which case your solutions of relative URIs or XML base work just fine. With the introduction of RDF into XHTML, however, we can no longer deny this hole. What if I want to express multiple Dublin Core properties in my page? Do I really need to write the Dublin Core URI multiple times? Do I really need to start using XSLT just so I can define URI abbreviations? Or should I simply violate the TAG's recommendation that QNames not be used as URI abbreviations, and then be stuck with a mostly-working-but-not-quite-complete abbreviation scheme? I certainly understand the worries about the specific syntax that will be used for CURIEs, and the task force is actively discussing various options right now. However, I don't understand this reaction to the CURIE concept. -Ben
Received on Monday, 28 November 2005 14:54:50 UTC