Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-5

Ben Adida wrote:
> Ivan Herman wrote:
>> My practical problem is that if we want to finalize RDFa as soon as
>> possible, which is the goal of everyone of us, than we should
>> de-associate RDFa from CURIE-s. Can we reformulate the issue along these
>> lines (@rel/@rev/@property use QNAME, for example)?
> It's a little bit difficult to do so with the CURIE/URI datatype for
> @about. This is becoming a more rare use case, but still an important one.
> Regardless, before we get into an involved discussion, I believe this is
> a different issue than ISSUE-5. The issue should probably be
> reformulated as: "should @rel/@rev/@property also accept URIs?" And I
> believe the consensus answer right now is "NO."


> Whether the other datatype is CURIE or QName is something we should
> discuss separately.

Honestly: I do not think this is a discussion we should even discuss. At
the moment, there is no CURIE, except for a note and lots of discussion;
making RDFa dependent on this would open a can of worms and would take
way too long....


> -Ben


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
PGP Key:

Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2007 07:44:05 UTC