W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > June 2007

Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-5

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:54:10 +0200
Message-ID: <467799B2.8040709@w3.org>
To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
CC: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
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

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)?


[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

Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 08:54:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:43 UTC