- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 01:21:42 -0400
- To: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Toby A Inkster wrote: > On 10 Jul 2009, at 13:23, Mark Birbeck wrote: > >> (c) but since ordinary CURIEs may still be used, we should differentiate >> by saying that anything appearing before a colon, that is not a >> mapped prefix, is a protocol. > > > Wouldn't this break existing pre-RDFa uses of CURIE-like tokens? (apologies if somebody else covered this already, I haven't caught up with all of my list traffic for the week - only 120 e-mails to go!) Yes, you're right, it would. However, we could adjust the rules slightly by doing something like this: --------------------- = CURIE prefix mappings = If a prefix mapping is not found for text that is given to the CURIE processing algorithm, and the text is an Internationalized Resource Identifier as defined in IRI[1], and the scheme is one of the allowable scheme values in the section below, then the expanded value of the potential CURIE should be the IRI. == Allowable CURIE Scheme values == This section is informative. Each of these listed values are allowable scheme values for CURIE processing. The values should be used verbatim in CURIE expansion. Each value is a registered IANA Scheme[2], each with a corresponding RFC: aaa aaas acap cap cid crid data dav dict dns fax file ftp go gopher h323 http https iax icap im imap info ipp iris iris.beep iris.xpc iris.xpcs iris.lwz ldap mailto ... and so on -------------------- > Uses of "dc:blah" with no explicit prefix mapping are not uncommon. > (Admittedly more in meta@name than @rel.) I'd say they're almost > certainly more common than the full-URIs-in-rel that this solution is > designed to work around. The above would prevent the dc:blah, dcterms:blah and dmci:blah stuff from generating a triple, wouldn't it? > eRDF pages will often also contain rel values with colons in. eRDF does > map prefixes to URIs, but not via xmlns:foo, instead using an > RFC2731-style <link> element. Supporting less of the registered IANA schemes would allow for a wider-range of backwards compatability with eRDF. I believe Shane said we could just support "http", "https", "urn", "ftp", and perhaps leave it at that. Do we know how many eRDF-enabled documents are out in the wild right now? If the answer is "not much", then some spurious triples on older content might be okay... -- manu [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987 [2] http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Bitmunk 3.1 Released - Browser-based P2P Commerce http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/06/29/browser-based-p2p-commerce/
Received on Thursday, 16 July 2009 05:22:20 UTC