Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-5

Hold on a minute:-) I would like to understand where we are with CURIE-s
exactly. I must admit that I did not follow all the ups and downs of this.

As far as I know, all we have on CURIE-s is a note that is now almost
two years' old[1] and has never moved forward. It has generated a huge
amount of discussions, and it also seems that the original motivators of
the CURIE spec (ie, IPTC) is not considering that as a solution to their
problems.

My practical problem is that if we want to finalize RDFa as soon as
possible, which is the goal of everyone of us, than we should
de-associate RDFa from CURIE-s. Can we reformulate the issue along these
lines (@rel/@rev/@property use QNAME, for example)?

Ivan

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-10-27-CURIE

Ben Adida wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> ISSUE-5 is on our list:
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/5
> 
> This is about whether @REL/@REV/@PROPERTY should be CURIE only (QNames,
> most of the time), or CURIE/URI, like about. In other words, should we
> write:
> 
> <span property="dc:title">RDFa Specification</span>
> 
> or
> 
> <span property="[dc:title]">RDFa Specification</span>
> 
> 
> Given that we have been writing all specs and implementations using the
> assumption that these are *only* CURIEs (no square brackets), I propose
> that we make these attributes CURIE only.
> 
> Remember, I'm counting on your prompt response on all of these issues!
> 
> -Ben
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf