Re: CURIEs: cite RDFa Core or CURIE WG Note?

Well... you should in no circumstances cite the CURIE Note.  It's dead.  
The RDFa Core document is a work in progress, but if you are referencing 
RDFa 1.1 anyway I think it is safe to talk about RDFa Core (and 
XHTML+RDFa).  You might also note that the only normative definition 
TODAY is RDFa Syntax if your audience cares about such things.

On 1/19/2011 3:34 PM, Christoph LANGE wrote:
> Hi Shane,
>
> 2011-01-19 22:09 Shane McCarron:
>> The only recommendation out today is rdfa-syntax.  I would cite that.
>> Once RDFa Core is a recommendation, I would switch and cite that.
> Thanks!  I should have said, though, that in the context where I would
> like to cite something about CURIEs I cover pretty recent stuff anyway
> (e.g. also including RDFa 1.1).  From that point of view, would you
> rather recommend citing the CURIE Note, or the RDFa Core Working Draft –
> or, still, the RDFa (1.0) Syntax Recommendation?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christoph
>

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

Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2011 22:17:31 UTC