W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html-editor@w3.org > April to June 2008

Comments on http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-curie-20080506/

From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 09:25:19 +0000
To: "www-html-editor@w3.org" <www-html-editor@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9674EA156DA93A4F855379AABDA4A5C611D211C6DF@G5W0277.americas.hpqcorp.net>

Please find below some minor comments on your LC WD < http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-curie-20080506/>.

I hope you find them of some use.


Stuart Williams
(wearing no hats)
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England


Section 1 Introduction: 6th para (Editorial)

Please change:
"This type is called a "CURIE" or a "Compact URI", and values that are syntactically valid QNames are a subset of this."

"This type is called a "CURIE" or a "Compact URI".  Syntactically, CURIE are a superset of QNames."

Rationale: avoid the use of the word 'value' in the original because it is not clear whether it refers to 'surface syntax' expressions or to what such expressions convey.


Section 1 Introduction: 7th para (boarder-line editorial)

"Any language designer considering the use of QNames in attribute values should consider instead using CURIEs, since CURIEs are designed for this purpose, while QNames are not."

However, CURIEs in XML attribute values inherit all the problems of QNames in attribute values in terms of a processors access to prefix mappings and the associated scoping issues. In what way are CURIE's designed to be more suitable as attribute values than QNames?  ie. are they subject to the same cautions as QNames in content - and if not why not?


Section 3 Syntax: (boarder-line editorial)

The following note is confusing:

"Note that while the set of IRIs represents the lexical space of a CURIE, the value space is the set of URIs (IRIs after canonicalization - see [IRI])."

I would have taken the lexical space of CURIE to be the QName like syntactic form and the value space to be aligned with that of xsd:anyURI. Being told that the lexical space of CURIE is IRI is confusing (to me at least).


Section 4.1 SPARQL (Editorial)

CURIE allow hierarchical references following the ':' whereas SPARQL is more restrictive. Whilst it is good to show how SPARQL provides for binding a prefix to an IRI, it is potentially misleading to suggest that CURIEs can be used in SPARQL. Were CURIE restricted to just a single segment reference (isegment-nz-nc) rather the more general irelative-ref, the "CURIE-like identifiers"  would be a fair expression.
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2008 09:30:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:39:50 UTC