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: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 16:35:58 -0400
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF590DB43054@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "Tom Baker" <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Cc: "Jodi Schneider" <jodi.schneider@deri.org>, "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" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>, <public-i18n-core@w3.org> 
> > Maybe it could be called "Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)",
> define
> > URIs, and refer also to IRIs.
> 
> It's unfortunately somewhat hidden, so you may not be aware of, but in
> terms of technology, in particular RDF, what it calls "URIs" are
> actually IRIs. Please have a look at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Graph-URIref.


I think there is a problem with this interpretation. This document uses the term "RDF URI" as an umbrella for URI [with reference to obsolete RFC 2396] along with an anticipated IRI specification. The current RFCs [RFC 3986 and RFC 3987] don't seem to oblige this umbrella use of "URI" outside an RDF context.

Jeff
Received on Saturday, 10 September 2011 20:36:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 September 2011 20:36:57 GMT