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

:-)

I have no real opinion on whether we use '#' or '/', to be honest.
Maybe, indeed, '#' is cleaner and quicker to install. As you say, one of
the two is indeed necessary.

In any case, you should also update the document at

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-rdfa-syntax-20070921/#s_rdfaindetail

to make it consistent.

Cheers

Ivan

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
> 
> 

-- 

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