Manu Sporny wrote:
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.
Right - but what damage is done at that point? How does that ambiguity
translate into a fatal error in an application or a logic error in a
reasoning agent?
I think that's pretty obvious, right? Two different relations would be
treated as a single one.
...
So, we approached it from the standpoint that not being able to place
URLs in @rel/@rev is too restrictive and that we should try to change that.
Sounds good.
I believe the consensus during the call today was on an approach that
would change the CURIE processing rules such that anything without a
prefix mapping is understood as a URL by default. This would allow URLs
to be used in @rel/@rev.
Which is good.
It's still not optimal that adding an xmlns declaration somewhere else
would affect the semantics, though. (And yes, I understand that the
problem can only be *fully* resolved by either breaking RDFa or
URIs-in-rel-values, which is exactly why I did complain loudly one year
ago).
...
BR, Julian
