CURIE objections in HTML5+RDFa (was: Re: RDFa and Web Directions North 2009)

Henri,

The front-runner for how we address the xmlns: issue seems to be
@prefix. I believe using @prefix to specify CURIE prefixes will address
all of your concerns with XHTML/HTML DOM incompatibilities. Please
confirm or reject this assertion (and be specific about what you
do/don't like about @prefix).

The other issue that you have raised is the perceived fragility of
CURIEs. Your suggested change has been to get rid of CURIEs altogether,
replacing them with full URIs. I can't tell if you are proposing this
because you think it is a good idea, or if you are proposing this to
illustrate a point about the authoring difficulty of using full URIs?

We have discussed all of these alternatives before, so I'd like to know
exactly what you are proposing and how it relates to previous arguments
that have been made in opposition to your proposal (in the case that it
is something we have not considered before).

I have outlined the general answer to the "Why do we need CURIEs?"
question here:

http://rdfa.info/wiki/developer-faq#Why_does_RDFa_use_CURIEs.3F

I have also outlined the general answer to the "What are the draw-backs
of using CURIEs?" questions here:

http://rdfa.info/wiki/Developer-faq#What_are_the_draw-backs_of_using_CURIEs.3F

Could you please summarize (refer to other conversations[1] if it helps)
why you feel that full URIs are a better alternative than CURIEs? For
those that take part in this thread, please be specific and keep it
focused on CURIEs vs. full URIs for predicates.

-- manu

[1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jan/0076.html

-- 
Manu Sporny
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Bitmunk 3.1 Website Launch
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/01/16/bitmunk-3-1-website-launch

Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2009 03:41:30 UTC