- From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:02:39 +0200
- To: public-rdfa-wg <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Hi all! Is it correct that the RDFa WG is currently recommending letting CURIEs share the same value space as regular URIs, and so that any prefix defined with the same value as a scheme, like "http", "https", "news" etc. will change the URI for any absolute URI using those schemes? I remember worrying about this last year, but I haven't followed the decision process in detail since then. It just worries me that letting these things collide will blow up for anyone who happens to use at least "http" or "https" as prefixes (perhaps rendering prefixes using a tool, or getting them from a profile out of their control). Or perhaps worse, people believing it safe to use anything but "http(s)" as prefixes, which will work until something other than those two comes along in the next 10 years or so. It might happen; and if it does, it may quite probably be beyond the controls of RDFa specs and tools. (An example: some vocabulary "Wide Exceptional Graphs" becomes popular, using "wxg" as a prefix. Then Google comes along with a new wxg scheme ("Web Extended by Google"), and soon lots of resources are linked with that instead of old "http". Or for that matter, that some other scheme [3] becomes popular again for whatever reason.) I vaguely recall the WG saying something about defining "http" as a prefix is bad practise. But this turns up here and there, not least since the HTTP Vocabulary Draft [1] (<http://www.w3.org/2006/http#>) recommend it as a prefix. And I just ran across "http" as a prefix in the Tabulator source as well [2]. While I understand that it is confusing to use it as a prefix, I am not convinced that it is safe to combine the CURIE and URI value space like this. At least not without a limit on the CURIEs allowed in the joint CURIEorURI space. For instance, not allowing CURIEs in that space to use anything after the prefix+':' other than say an isegment-nz-nc from RFC 3987, or something to that effect (like a "[A-Za-z0-9_-.]+" regexp). If there was such a restriction on the format of CURIEs are allowed in the CURIEorURI mix (and that anything not matching it would be considered a full URI), I would definitely sleep better. :) Am I missing something crucial, or overly worried about the risk of collisions? Best regards, Niklas [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/HTTP-in-RDF10/ [2]: http://dig.csail.mit.edu/hg/tabulator/file/9a135feff10f/chrome/content/js/rdf/rdflib.js#l5644 [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_scheme
Received on Monday, 11 April 2011 22:03:27 UTC