W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > February 2008

Re: A note on CURIE-s in tutorials, primers, examples...

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:46:42 -0800
Message-ID: <47C5B012.8090308@adida.net>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, W3C RDFa task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Ivan Herman wrote:
> Why is there a difference between @rel/@rev and @resource/@about in this 
> respect? After all, we could argue that we could put a full URI into the 
> @rel/@rev value, too... In all cases the value of CURIE-s is that I do 
> not have to type in a full, long, and possibly complicated URI... (which 
> I have to do all the time in RDF/XML, and it is quite a pain...)

See my previous post on needing bnode referencing in @resource.

That doesn't apply to @rel/@rev, which are only predicates, and we've 
resolved that, to keep the initial cases of RDFa simple, we didn't want 
safe CURIEs in @rel/@rev....

Now, putting on my chair hat....

There will always be ways of pointing out slight inconsistencies in what 
we do, because we're working with a host language we don't control. The 
approach we seem to have implicitly agreed upon is to keep existing 
attributes simple (CURIE *or* URI, not both), add more features in the 
new attributes (safe CURIEs in @about and @resource), and ensure some 
reasonable consistency (@property same as @rel). I think that was the 
group's compromise, and I'm not seeing any reason to re-open this 
discussion in last call, unless there's a specific use case that's 
really a problem.

Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2008 18:46:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:55 UTC