Re: Proposal for an additional 'link type' for rdf:type

Hi Ivan,

> this has nothing to do with the content of your mail but made me ask
> something else (and it seems that I still get into the CURIE trap
> time-to-time so I prefer to ask).
>
> You write instanceof="[foaf:PersonalProfileDocument]" in all your
> examples. My understanding is that the value of instanceof (just like
> @rel, @rev is %QName.datatype; (from the DTD), ie, the '[' is
> unnecessary in these examples. Is it so that '[' is _allowed_ for cases
> when the value is CURIE? My current understanding was that safe curies
> are used when the value is defined to be a URI (ie, for @href,
> @resource, and @about) but not elsewhere. The syntax document does not
> make it clear either. (If Safe CURIE is allowed anywhere where QNAME is
> allowed, then I will have to modify my code, too...).
>
> Note that all of our examples uses the distinction I made, so if safe
> curie is allowed for qname-s, too, we should have this in the various
> examples.

Yes, I really do apologise for causing confusion--Niklas spotted that
too. I began with the @resource example and then cut-and-paste to
produce the @instanceof examples, but didn't remove the square
brackets.

Many apologies...

Mark

-- 
  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer

  mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  standards. innovation.

Received on Monday, 1 October 2007 13:18:11 UTC