Re: [office-metadata] CURIE or not CURIE..

[Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>]

Svante Schubert wrote:

...

> Therefore I would suggest to drop the CURIE for now and use URI only in 
> our RDFa attributes and adapt later (ASAP) the namespace and to the 
> final solution of CURIE given by the W3C.

+1. This is why we didn't use CURIE's to begin with. I'm fine with this.

> FYI - Just another compatibility question regarding RDFa, I just asked 
> Mark Birbeck, one of the RDFa/CURIE editors, who I met on the XML 2007 
> in Boston:

My guess, he'll say ...

> In case I export a future ODF 1.2 package containing some RDFa 
> attributes and RDF/XML files to XHTML, how does XHTML relate the RDF/XML 
> files, which are saved somewhere aside the file.

The only way to do so is via common subject URIs. E.g.:

<p>Talk to <a rel="foo:bar" href="http://svantes.net";>Svante</a>.</p>

... and:

<foaf:Person rdf"about="http://svantes.net";>
   ...
</foaf:Person>

> Are there mechanisms similar to CSS like a file relation or even an 
> embedding of RDF/XML in the header?

People use the link element (with appropriate type attribute) in the 
header to refer to external RDF files.

BTW, I haven't yet looked at the new versions. Is there a concise list 
of changes besides the one you note above?

Bruce