Re: [ISSUE 56] Request TAG guidance on preparing a response to the CURIE last call draft wrote:
> Thank you for pointing out the informative, normative distinction.  I 
> obviously had misread the text I quoted as normative.  I certainly would 
> not advocate any MUSTs in non-normative text.  Let me give it some 
> thought.  Have you given any consideration to making what you quote as a 
> SHOULD a MUST?  It seems to me an outright error to rely on CURIE 
> interpretation of a string in a field that's specified as a URI. 
We have discussed from time to time whether it ought to be a MUST. You 
are correct that there is never a situation where a URI and a CURIE can 
peacefully co-exist in the same attribute value.  Such an attribute 
would have to take as its value (at a minimum) the datatype 
URIorSafeCURIE as defined in Appendix A.  So I think it makes sense (to 
me) that the clause say "MUST" instead of "SHOULD".  I will of course 
need to ratify such a change with the working group.  I will socialize 
the idea over there, but await your formal comments before making any 
real changes to the source.

Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet:

Received on Friday, 29 August 2008 16:55:29 UTC