Looking at this list, the remaining asymmetry is the usage of keywords
for @rel/@rev/@property. I begin to wonder: if we do such a grand
unification, does it make sense to keep this asymmetry? I do not claim
that statements like
<span about="next" ... />
would have a widespread usage but it does make sense in the RDF sense,
ie, it means
xhtml:next some:property some:value .
ie, I make a statement on an existing predicate. Perfectly kosher for
RDF.
Ie: what about removing that asymmetry altogether, and say that
predefined keywords are also valid for @about and @resource? It would
make the URI management simpler and cleaner and I do not really see a
major drawback...
No, please not. As far as I am concerned about="next" must always mean the
same as about="./next". It must always be a URI.
Steven
Ivan
P.S. So here is what I run now.
1. Get the possible safe curie signs out of the way at the start, ie, if
the value is of the form '[...]' then remove the [ and ] signs and set a
'safe_curie' flag to True.
2. Get the possible blank node management out of the way, ie return the
right blank node for things like '_:a'. Note that if this is called for
a @rel/@property/@ref, then return None (with possible error message)
because you cannot have a blank node for a predicate
3. If it is called on @rel/@rev and the value is a keyword then return
the corresponding URI
4. Try to match the value against a CURIE definition (ie, see if it is
of the form a:b and 'a' is defined as a namespace, oops, local name). If
yes, return the corresponding URI
5. If we get here, this should become a real URI. However, if the
safe_curie flag was set to True, stop at this point and (possibly) issue
an error message and return with None
6. If we get here, this is a real URI (absolute or relative), and fall
back to the usual URI management to get the final URI.
