- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:04:24 -0600
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- CC: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
One sort of peripheral point that not everyone may understand: Manu Sporny wrote: > I don't think we should have a "mapping" to use when there is no prefix. > The two lines above should be removed from the document. Having a prefix > mapping for non-prefixed CURIEs assumes that all non-prefixed CURIEs are > valid and have a mapping (which is not true). The CURIE spec requires that you define such a mapping since the syntax allows it and many grammars that need CURIEs might want to make it available. However, it is perfectly legal to have a host language define that the mapping is to nothing (there is no default prefix mapping). Its what the CURIE spec calls an additional constraint. In this case, however, what I would say is there are no non-prefixed nor default prefixed CURIEs. There are just prefixed CURIEs and some reserved values that map into the XHTML vocab# space. I think this is consistent with where Ben and Mark have landed, but we should just be aware that that what we are doing here with CURIEs is not what SPARQL will do with CURIEs, for example. And that's fine. -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2008 22:04:43 UTC