- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:33:24 -0600
- To: Pete Johnston <Pete.Johnston@eduserv.org.uk>
- CC: www-html@w3.org
You are correct. Thanks for pointing this out. Pete Johnston wrote: > In the CURIE Syntax WD of 20071126 > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126/ > > Section 3 includes the line: > > >> The concatenation of the prefix associated with a CURIE and its >> > reference MUST be an IRI [IRI]. > > Maybe I'm misunderstanding this rule, but I wondered whether this was > correct. > > It seems to me it is not the concatenation of prefix and reference which > should form an IRI; rather, it's the concatenation of the IRI to which > the prefix is mapped and the reference which should form an IRI. > > I think the summary of CURIE embedded in the RDFa Syntax draft > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-rdfa-syntax-20071018/#s_curies > > gets it right when it says > > >> This IRI is obtained by taking the currently in-scope mapping that is >> > associated with prefix, and concatenating it with the reference. The > result MUST be a syntactically valid IRI > > Regards > > Pete > --- > Pete Johnston > Technical Researcher, Eduserv Foundation > Web: http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/people/petejohnston/ > Weblog: http://efoundations.typepad.com/efoundations/ > Email: pete.johnston@eduserv.org.uk > Tel: +44 (0)1225 474323 > > > -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Friday, 11 January 2008 19:33:45 UTC