- From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:46:42 -0800
- 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. -Ben
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2008 18:46:54 UTC