Re: "CURIE Syntax 1.0" 20 2005
several recommendations:
1. Help readers understand the status of this document, specifically:
2. Change the style sheet to be the Editor's Draft style sheet, per
"Style for Group-internal Drafts" [1] as this is not yet a W3C Note.
[1]
3. Add "produced in the context of the RDF-in-HTML Task Force
of the Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment and HTML
Working Groups" to the Status of this Document section, with
links to [2, 3, 4] respectively.
[2]
[3]
[4]
4. In 1 Motivation, add "URIs can be expressed /+in XML+/ using QNames.
5. In 2 Usage, clarify whether an empty namespace prefix (":foo") is
meant to be interpreted the same as an absent namespace prefix
("foo"). Both are currently specified to use the "current base URL"
but it might be more natural (esp. under our Tuesday discussion)
to use the current default namespace.
6. 2.2 Ambiguities. Some readers will ask why we're proposing a new
mechanism rather than use XML entities. I recommend we anticipate
that question with an answer somewhere close this example.
7. The last example in 2.2 declares 'company' as a namespace prefix
then uses something else that hasn't been declared. This obscures
the intention of the example.
used

Ralph, Mark,

Given the short timeframe before submitting these docs to Guus and
the clear path to implementing the straight-forward changes below.
The only point I did not address was #6, regarding the preemptive
argument against using XML entities. Mark, if you've got time to say
a few words about that, that would be great.

The new CURIE spec is at the following URL, which will be stable from
now on for this version.

-Ben

27, 2005, at 2:38 PM, Ralph R. Swick wrote:

Re: "CURIE Syntax 1.0" 20 2005

several recommendations:

1. Help readers understand the status of this document, specifically:

2. Change the style sheet to be the Editor's Draft style sheet, per
"Style for Group-internal Drafts" [1] as this is not yet a W3C
Note.

[1]

3. Add "produced in the context of the RDF-in-HTML Task Force
of the Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment and HTML
Working Groups" to the Status of this Document section, with
links to [2, 3, 4] respectively.

[2]
[3]
[4]

4. In 1 Motivation, add "URIs can be expressed /+in XML+/ using
QNames.

5. In 2 Usage, clarify whether an empty namespace prefix (":foo") is
meant to be interpreted the same as an absent namespace prefix
("foo"). Both are currently specified to use the "current base
URL"
but it might be more natural (esp. under our Tuesday discussion)
to use the current default namespace.

6. 2.2 Ambiguities. Some readers will ask why we're proposing a new
mechanism rather than use XML entities. I recommend we anticipate
that question with an answer somewhere close this example.

7. The last example in 2.2 declares 'company' as a namespace prefix
then uses something else that hasn't been declared. This obscures
the intention of the example.
used
>
>
>
>

I somehow garbled that first sentence.

What I meant was: "given the short timeframe, **I implemented** the
straight-forward changes, except #6."
-Ben

27, 2005, at 4:05 PM, Ben Adida wrote:

--
Ralph, Mark,

Given the short timeframe before submitting these docs to Guus and
the clear path to implementing the straight-forward changes below.
The only point I did not address was #6, regarding the preemptive
argument against using XML entities. Mark, if you've got time to
say a few words about that, that would be great.

The new CURIE spec is at the following URL, which will be stable
from now on for this version.

-Ben

27, 2005, at 2:38 PM, Ralph R. Swick wrote:
>
>
>>
>Re: "CURIE Syntax 1.0" 20 2005
>
>>
>several recommendations:
>>
>1. Help readers understand the status of this document, specifically:
>>
>2. Change the style sheet to be the Editor's Draft style sheet, per
>"Style for Group-internal Drafts" [1] as this is not yet a W3C
>Note.
>>
>[1]
>>
>3. Add "produced in the context of the RDF-in-HTML Task Force
>of the Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment and HTML
>Working Groups" to the Status of this Document section, with
>links to [2, 3, 4] respectively.
>>
>[2]
>[3]
>[4]
>>
>4. In 1 Motivation, add "URIs can be expressed /+in XML+/ using
>QNames.
>>
>5. In 2 Usage, clarify whether an empty namespace prefix (":foo") is
>meant to be interpreted the same as an absent namespace prefix
>("foo"). Both are currently specified to use the "current base
>URL"
>but it might be more natural (esp. under our Tuesday discussion)
>to use the current default namespace.
>>
>6. 2.2 Ambiguities. Some readers will ask why we're proposing a new
>mechanism rather than use XML entities. I recommend we anticipate
>that question with an answer somewhere close this example.
>>
>7. The last example in 2.2 declares 'company' as a namespace prefix
>then uses something else that hasn't been declared. This obscures
>the intention of the example.
>used
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

At 04:11 PM 10/27/2005 -0400, Ben Adida wrote:
>"given the short timeframe, **I implemented** the
>straight-forward changes, except #6."

sure, I wasn't even sure you'd feel like doing that much.

thing that feels missing is an explanation of our bNode
syntax. Not sure which document that belongs in, but somewhere
between the CURIE and RDF/A documents we need about
4 more sentences. That can wait 'till after the f2f, though.