Re: URIs in @rel and @property...

Ben Adida wrote:
>
> Hey folks,
>
> I'm catching up on the minutes from today, looks like a productive 
> meeting, very nice.
>
> I am a little bit concerned about supporting plain CURIEs in @about, 
> @href, and @resource. For one, the use case is *very* limited, since 
> the whole point of prefixes is to reuse vocabularies, and that applies 
> to predicates, not to subjects and objects. Also, we want to continue 
> to support relative URIs in @about, just like @href (and the spec for 
> @href isn't about to change), and that's not very easy to do if we 
> allow plain CURIEs, too.

I do not think that the concept of enabling regular CURIEs in @about and 
@resource was really accepted.  If it was, I wasn't paying attention 
(which is possible).  I can see how it is a logical extension of the 
rule that says "if a prefix is not mapped, treat it as a URI" but I 
consider it to be a separate topic.  Happy to debate it.  Not sure how I 
feel about it at this point.  In general I am not a fan of making 
changes like this.  I find relative URIs in @about and @resource to be 
compelling.  I find your vocabulary and predicates compelling.  So, 
right this moment, I would oppose permitting regular CURIEs in @about 
and @resource.

>
> So I think we should be as conservative as possible with this change. 
> Allowing absolute URIs in @rel, @property, @typeof, and @datatype 
> makes sense, but generalizing the "other way" to let @about and 
> @resource (and @href) carry plain CURIEs does not, in my opinion, 
> because of important existing uses for those attributes.
I do not think there was support in the meeting for extending CURIEs 
into non-RDFa attributes (e.g., @href and @src).  Personally, I would 
oppose such a move. 


-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com

Received on Thursday, 12 November 2009 19:44:42 UTC