- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 18:27:20 +0200
- To: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
- Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Niklas, just one comment and one minor point below On May 31, 2011, at 17:19 , Niklas Lindström wrote: [snip] > > I could live with it, if it comes to that. :) But I cannot really agree. > > Have you discussed this combination of CURIEorURI in e.g. the RDF > working group, or the RDF community in general? I'd be somewhat > surprised if I'm the only one feeling uneasy about it.. Firs of all, to answer to your question: the RDF Working Group does not have this issue, so it is not really relevant as a group. The issue of URI vs. CURIE-s was one of the first features that appeared in RDFa 1.1, and we have not received any comments in this respect. My comment is on the usage of safe CURIE-s. My problem with it is not technical. One of the driving forces behind the RDFa 1.1 work was to bring it closer to users. However, as a user myself one of the least user-friendly features in RDFa 1.0 (for me at least) was safe CURIE-s. If I can use CURIE-s and URI-s just about everywhere, it becomes VERY difficult to explain and, more importantly, get people use and understand safe CURIE-s. This will backfire on user friendliness and, therefore, on the acceptance of RDFa. This is just a point to consider... Ivan ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2011 16:25:05 UTC