RE: [RDFa] ISSUE-55: CURIEs or QNames in XHTML1.1+RDFa

Ben,
 
> Mark proposed that we use the same approach: build into our 
> specification a grammar for what we expect these values to 
> look like, without having to reference an outside specification.
>
> After a few days of thinking about this, I agree with this 
> solution. We are basically doing exactly what SPARQL did. 
> Neither they nor we are trying to define a reusable concept. 
> It's too bad that we can't get together and actually *define* 
> this concept, but we need to worry about RDFa right now, and 
> that's the way to solve it.
> 
> Any thoughts, complaints, objections, please send.

That's exactly what I was asking and advocating in the first place.

I absolutely agree with defining right what we need for RDFa
and I never really got it how the whole discussion drifted away
into TAGish shallows. Again: Let's do it the SPARQL-way, maybe
some other specs will follow doing the same, and in some 5 years
time, maybe, a CURIE-like, global spec will emerge ;)

Cheers,
	Michael

----------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
 Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
---------------------------------------------------------- 

Received on Thursday, 12 July 2007 19:16:20 UTC