W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > January 2011

Re: URI Comparisons: RFC 2616 vs. RDF

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:16:49 +0000
Message-ID: <4D348791.3040306@webr3.org>
To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
CC: public-lod@w3.org
Dave Reynolds wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 16:52 +0000, Nathan wrote: 
>> I'd suggest that it's a little more complex than that, and that this may 
>> be an issue to clear up in the next RDF WG (it's on the charter I believe).
> 
> I beg to differ.
> 
> The charter does state: 
> 
> "Clarify the usage of IRI references for RDF resources, e.g., per SPARQL
> Query ยง1.2.4."
> 
> However, I was under the impression that was simply removing the small
> difference between "RDF URI References" and the IRI spec (that they had
> anticipated). Specifically I thought the only substantive issue there
> was the treatment of space and many RDF processors already take the
> conservation position on that anyway.

Likewise, apologies as I should have picked my choice of words more 
appropriately, I intended to say that the usage of IRI references was up 
for clarification, and if normalization were deemed an issue then the 
RDF WG may be the place to raise such an issue, and address if needed.

As for RIF and GRDDL, can anybody point me to the reasons why 
normalization are not performed, does this have xmlns heritage?

Best,

Nathan
Received on Monday, 17 January 2011 18:18:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:31 UTC