- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 16:55:21 +0900
- To: Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- CC: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>, 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
Hello Tom, others, On 2011/09/11 9:18, Tom Baker wrote: > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 04:35:58PM -0400, Jeff Young wrote: >> 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. > > When Martin wrote "Linked Data uses URIs. By definition, this includes IRIs", I > took him to mean that URIs, by definition, include IRIs -- very simple, very > clear -- and suggested my rewrite accordingly [1]. Is it the case that IRIs > are _not_ a subset of URIs; but that Linked Data, inasmuch it uses RDF, for > which URIs are considered to include IRIs, by definition includes IRIs? Yes, indeed. I'm sorry that this wasn't clear from my text. Regards, Martin.
Received on Monday, 12 September 2011 11:09:32 UTC