- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 18:58:15 +0100
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, public-xhtml2@w3.org, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 1/3/09 18:29, Sam Ruby wrote: > Karl Dubost wrote: >> >> Le 1 mars 2009 à 09:54, Henri Sivonen a écrit : >>> Now, to put an actual technical proposal in here: >>> >>> I suggest changing RDFa to use full IRIs instead of CURIEs. Then, >>> suggest making it a conformance requirement for rel in both text/html >>> and application/xhtml+xml that a rel token MUST NOT contain a colon >>> or MUST be an absolute IRI and MUST NOT start with the string >>> "http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/". Authors SHOULD NOT mint >>> relation IRIs that differ only in case. >> >> After discussing with henri this [morning (EST) on IRC][1], a possible >> solution for solving the issue without creating too much hurdles for >> authors and spec would be to use urn. >> >> urn:dc:title >> >> is a URI and as henri mentioned, "one could register a URI scheme for >> dc". > > If a URI scheme for dc were registered, HTML5 could treat 'xmlns:dc' > attributes as talismans, and treat as conformance errors cases where > such attributes have a value that differs from > 'http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/'. I've toyed with registering a FOAF uri scheme, such that foaf:title is a foaf: URI scheme URI for the thing normally known by the URI http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/title ...however I don't like the dynamic this creates: everyone who creates an RDF vocabulary will now be under pressure to go register their favoured short name as a URI scheme too, so that someone else couldn't take that name later and subvert the intended meaning of instance data using the original schema. If you make a vocab known as "sam" and define it in RDFS/OWL at http://intertwingly.net/same-vocab-1# ... ... then next year, someone registers sam: as an abbreviation for a different RDFS/OWL vocab defined at http://sam.evilorannoying.example.com/some-other-sam# ... Suddenly the proper interpretation is very much up for grabs. Does <same:userid> mean what http://intertwingly.net/same-vocab-1#userid says, or what https://sam.evilorannoying.example.com/some-other-sam#userid says? Since machine-readable schemas associated with these URIs can be used for data generation and merging, this creates plenty of scope for mischief. Should I (try to) register a foaf: URI scheme before someone else does? cheers, Dan
Received on Sunday, 1 March 2009 17:59:07 UTC