Manu Sporny wrote:
What is the worst thing that could happen, as far as you are concerned, if a consumer saw/stored both "urn:rights" and "urn:uuid:1225c695-cfb8-4ebb-aaaa-80da344efa6a", verbatim? What is the damage done to the Web if the practice becomes widespread?
With "urn:uuid:1225c695-cfb8-4ebb-aaaa-80da344efa6a" there is no problem -- it looks like a full URI and it is.
With "urn:rights" there is the problem that the consumer gets the wrong URI, and furthermore there's a real risk that it could get the same string from a different party, trying to identify a *different* link relation.
Also, what is in your set of acceptable solutions to the issue - assuming that we adopt Sam's "SHOULD avoid well known URI schemes" language, and ensuring that there is backwards compatability for RDFa? Similarly, what is your ideal solution?
If I had a solution that is compatible both with RDFa and full-URIs in @rel, I would already have proposed it. That's why I've been complaining for so long: I think the use of CURIEs instead of safe-CURIEs in @rel is a big problem. (It's ok in new attributes, but problematic in @rel/rev).
BR, Julian
