Re: an issue with prefix-less curies (also comment on the syntax document)

Hi Ivan,

Sorry about this, but I included a solution to this in the syntax
spec, and forgot to mention it!

(I'm not sure if that makes me one of Michael's good guys, or his bad guys...)

Anyway, if you look here:

  <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-rdfa-syntax-20070918/#s_curies>

you'll see that we have the following:

<blockquote>
To evaluate CURIEs during processing the following context needs to be set:

    [snip]

    * a mapping to use when there is no prefix (for example, p);

      The mapping to use when there is no prefix is
http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml#.
</blockquote>

As you can see, this suggests that the default namespace should have
'#' added to the end of the normal XHTML namespace.

I intended to draw attention to this addition--honest. The fact that I
didn't certainly doesn't mean that it is set in stone, and we could
easily change the URI to use '/' if everyone wanted to. But I think
it's generally agreed that we need _something_ at the end of the URI
(as you also seem to be saying), and when dealing with small
vocabularies I think it is generally agreed that the '#' version is
the easiest to set-up and manage (again, as you also seem to be
saying).

So, first, apologies for forgetting to mention this, but second,
perhaps we can just open an issue, get a quick vote on '#' or '/' and
then close it again?

BTW, it's good to hear that you've been talking with Tim about RDFa. :)

Regards,

Mark


On 25/09/2007, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> No, I do not want to go into the core discussion:-), this is something
> else.
>
> I had a chat with TimBL this afternoon on RDFa and he made me realize
> something. Say we have the rel="next" somewhere. This is one of the
> reserved properties, so I think we all agree that the RDFa processor
> would generate the xhtml:next property in the RDF graph. Some small
> issues with that, though
>
> - the current syntax document defines the xhtml namespace as:
>
>         http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
>
> if the simple CURIE rules are used, that means that the CURIE above will
> expand to
>
>         http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtmlnext
>
> which is certainly not what we want. So what namespace should be used?
> At the moment, if I type in
>
>         http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
>
> in my browser, it seems to redirect to
>
>         http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/
>
> is this the namespace we should use? Or is it
>
>         http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml#
>
> ?
>
> - In both cases we get a number of URI-s for the predefined XHTML @rel
> values. Either
>
>         http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/next
>
> or
>
>         http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml#next
>
> In a nice world both URI-s should be dereferencable... The second one
> does, in the sense that it will return something (but the #next will be
> forgotten), whereas the first one will yield a 404....:-(
>
> Nothing serious here, but we should probably decide what the final URI-s
> should be for the predefined @rel/@property values, set up a minimal
> infrastructure to make those URIs dereferencable and set the namespace
> accordingly...
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
  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 Tuesday, 25 September 2007 19:40:09 UTC