Re: Which CURIE specification should one build on?

On Apr 4, 2012, at 4:25 PM, Christoph LANGE wrote:

> Dear RDFa working group members,
> 
> CURIEs are specified as a part of RDFa Core, but there is also an older 
> standalone document at http://www.w3.org/TR/curie/.

> 
> We are specifying a language (DOL = Distributed Ontology Language; see 
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntoIOp), in which we would like 
> to adopt CURIEs, and we are starting to implement support for them.
> 
> On which CURIE specification should we build?  I noticed that the two 
> specifications slightly differ.
> 
> RDFa Core says
> 
> (1) reference   ::=   ( ipath-absolute / ipath-rootless / ipath-empty )
>                      [ "?" iquery ] [ "#" ifragment ] (as defined in 
> [RFC3987])
> 
> … whereas the standalone CURIE specification says
> 
> (2) reference   :=   irelative-ref (as defined in IRI)

The older spec is not really a spec, but just a Note, and is obsoleted by the RDFa Core version.

> I think that (2) would allow to interpret scheme://authority/ as a CURIE 
> with prefix scheme:, whereas it would not be a CURIE wrt. (1).
> 
> Of course, we are not interested in such cases of CURIEs, but I was just 
> trying to find out the difference, and to see if it is relevant.

This is one reason the CURIE definition was changed, so that absolute IRIs would  not seem to be CURIEs. Also, the newer version is more inline with PNAME definitions from SPARQL/Turtle, but allow relative paths in the local part.

> What would you recommend?

Definitely go with the RDFa Core 1.1 version.

Gregg

> Cheers, and thanks,
> 
> Christoph
> 
> -- 
> Christoph Lange, Jacobs University Bremen
> http://kwarc.info/clange, Skype duke4701
> 
> → Balisage Markup Conference.  Montréal, Canada, 7–10 August 2012.
>   Deadline 20 Apr.  http://balisage.net

> → OpenMath Workshop @ CICM 2012.  Bremen, Germany, 11 July 2012.
>   Deadline 25 May.  http://www.openmath.org

>

Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 00:26:57 UTC