W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > September 2007

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

From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:13:18 +0200
Message-ID: <cf8107640709260313u30e82cb2r4890a98ba4bd8f08@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: "Mark Birbeck" <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Hi!

Mostly thinking out loud here; I hope I'm not confusing things.

I wonder -- since this is in fact the introduction of a new set of
URIs for the unprefixed names in @rel -- would there be any merit in
distinguish it a bit more from the (namespace) URI of the xhtml
doctype? Like:

    <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/relations#>

(I've also thought about how unprefixed names relates to an eventual
@profile, since that seems to be what (at least normatively) defines
what names are "imported" to the non-prefixed "space". But that is
probably another discussion, and possibly not crucial.)

Best regards,
Niklas


On 9/26/07, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> :-)
>
> 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
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 10:19:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:52 UTC