Re: quick ping - ISSUE-104

I never heard back from you on this issue. It appears that it was  
closed without any action being taken. The RDFa candidate rec and the  
CURIE WD seem to disagree on what the CURIE value space is, meaning  
that the resolution of 2008-06-12 was not taken or was incompletely  
implemented. There is no indication (that I found) in the RDFa  
candidate of what the value space of URIorSafeCURIE is. I would think  
it reasonable to suppose it is the same as, or a superset of,  
xsd:anyURI, but that may make it incompatible with the CURIE value  
space (which I also would have assumed to be the same as the value  
space of xsd:anyURI... but apparently it's not).

I say "seem to" and "may" because I don't really understand the  
technical details around URIs, IRIs, and the anyURI value space  
(whatever that may be) well enough to say. Perhaps Noah can help out  

Although this seems arcane, there are situations in which the value  
space issue matters a lot; e.g. it is being examined in relation to  
OWL 2 semantics right now. A little care now will prevent many  
headaches later. I urged you to be more explicit and wordy before, and  
I continue to do so.

(I am not speaking for the TAG but I hereby acknowledge the influence  
of other TAG members on this topic.)



On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:33 AM, Shane McCarron wrote:

> Thanks for making your request clear.  I will discuss this with the  
> editing team and we will get back to you.
> Jonathan Rees wrote:
>> OK, then please make sure that Appendix B of the RDFa Syntax and  
>> Processing spec has definite statements about the value spaces of  
>> BOTH of your new datatypes, CURIE and URIorSafeCURIE. Being  
>> especially clear on the difference between the QName and CURIE  
>> value spaces, and the similarities or differences betweeen anyURI  
>> and URIorSafeCURIE value spaces, in this part of the document,  
>> seems pretty important.
>> Not that I understand this stuff all that well, but there seems to  
>> be so much potential for confusion that I don't think you can  
>> overdo the explanations here.
>> Jonathan
>> On Jun 16, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Shane McCarron wrote:
>>> Jonathan Rees wrote:
>>>> On Jun 16, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Shane McCarron wrote:
>>>>> Sorry, I misunderstood your request.  We have defined the  
>>>>> lexical and value space for CURIEs in the CURIE spec itself ( 
>>>>>  for the latest draft).   For a variety of reasons the RDFa spec  
>>>>> does not reference the CURIE spec.  If I understand your  
>>>>> request, you would like the text about CURIE lexical and value  
>>>>> space copied into the RDFa specification.  Is that correct?
>>>> I found nothing relevant in Appendix A here:
>>>> so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
>>> Agreed - the definition of those spaces is in the normative  
>>> section 3, and is stated as:
>>>> The concatenation of the prefix value associated with a CURIE and  
>>>> its |reference| MUST be an IRI (as defined by the IRI production  
>>>> in [IRI <>]).  
>>>> Note that while the set of IRIs represents the /lexical space/ of  
>>>> a CURIE, the /value space/ is the set of URIs (IRIs after  
>>>> canonicalization - see [IRI < 
>>>> >]).
>>>> Whether either document can cite the other depends on their  
>>>> publication schedule. I don't advise having a recommendation cite  
>>>> a draft.
>>> Quite.  The publication schedules are disjoint, which is one of  
>>> the reasons the two are not coupled together.
>>> -- 
>>> Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160  
>>> x120
>>> Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
>>> ApTest Minnesota                            Inet:
> -- 
> Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
> Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
> ApTest Minnesota                            Inet:

Received on Saturday, 30 August 2008 16:34:41 UTC