Re: quick ping - ISSUE-104

I may not have made it clear that my recent comments were about the  
CURIE draft, not about the RDFa draft. It appears the TAG is taking up  
the CURIE issues, and will certainly provide better guidance than I  
alone would be able to.

Regarding RDFa, I am less concerned because it says nothing  
normatively about XML Schema datatypes. There is only one mention each  
of "lexical space" and "value space", without any hint that these  
terms have anything to do with XML Schema. I would be happier if there  
were no allusion at all, but I don't think anyone will get too  
confused by this sentence, especially if later the CURIE document  
justifies it and makes it rigorous.

Likewise, Appendix B is only informative, and I think you will be  
forgiven if it needs to be refined by the CURIE spec. There is a  
possible inconsistency in that XML Schema datatypes defined using an  
XML Schema definition like the one given cannot, as far as I know,  
specify novel lexical-to-value mappings, and my guess (again, I'm not  
expert on this stuff!) is that absent anything that modifies the  
mapping (prose? code?), the mapping would be inherited from the type  
(xs:string) of which the new type is a restriction. In this case the  
mapping would be the identity function and the value space would be  
the same as the lexical space - not limited to IRIs. But as the  
appendix doesn't even hint at anything about the mapping or the value  
space, I think most readers will simply accept that this issue simply  
isn't addressed.

I know how close you are to publication and I would not worry too much  
about this. The CURIE spec will fix anything that needs to be fixed.

Again, speaking for myself only.


Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2008 21:14:05 UTC