Re: Fine-tuning CURIEs (reply #2 :-)

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Hi Ivan,
> 
>> I have not seen any argument (sorry about that...) that would make my
>> opinion change.
> 
> With respect, at least you have seen some arguments.
> 
> I haven't yet seen anything that convincingly says why we should
> change the parsing rules for CURIEs such that they are no longer a
> super-set of QNames, given that their whole purpose is to do what
> QNames has been co-opted to do, but do it 'properly'.
> 

As you said yourself: my motivation is different here. I do _not_ start
with the general CURIE issues and I selfishly put my head in the sand
and look at RDFa only:-( In other words, from an argumentation point of
view, I do not really want to take that into account...

> Also, I'm not understanding why we should not have a mechanism for
> exposing *any* metadata in a document to an application that is using
> an RDFa parser.
> 

And I think I said that. Other communities have used the @rel attributes
for other purposes (let us put aside the fact that XHTML2 seems not
legalize that...), and I am against generating extra RDF triples for
cases which were not necessarily meant to be used that way. That is also
the feedback I got from DCMI, as one major user community.

I am afraid we are repeating ourselves and we can agree that we
disagree. The TC should vote.

Ivan

-- 

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