W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: I18n and Linked Data - an important (but fixable) omission?

From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 12:22:28 +0900
Message-ID: <4E6AD7F4.1060809@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
CC: Andrew Cunningham <andrewc@vicnet.net.au>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@dfki.de>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-xg-lld@w3.org, public-i18n-core@w3.org
Hello Tom,

On 2011/09/10 1:56, Tom Baker wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 12:36:02PM +1000, Andrew Cunningham wrote:
>> Being in both Library and i18n camps, I'd stress the important of
>> referencing IRIs.
>
> I see your point but don't see an easy way of doing this without changing the
> whole emphasis in the report on "URIs" (e.g., a global search and replace
> "s/URIs/IRIs/"?).  Emphasizing IRIs would put us out of synch with the
> five-star coffee cup message of Linked Data generally.  Making the reference
> prominently in the Scope section will get readers' attention.  If the Linked
> Data message is wrong to emphasize URIs (and not IRIs) _generally_, then maybe
> we need a revised coffee cup message...

As I have pointed out (see 
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Graph-URIref) in another 
mail, "URI" in RDF essentially means "IRI". And you get the 4th star for 
using RDF, so strictly speaking, it's all covered. But I think you have 
a point here, and we should get Tim to update [1] with a comment that 
"URI" in RDF includes IRIs.

Regards,   Martin.


> [1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
>
Received on Saturday, 10 September 2011 03:23:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 September 2011 03:23:13 GMT