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

Re: URI Comparisons: RFC 2616 vs. RDF

From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 08:47:09 +0000
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: public-lod@w3.org
Message-ID: <1295340429.2505.14.camel@dave-desktop>
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 18:16 +0000, Nathan wrote: 
> 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.

OK, that makes sense.

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

Not as far as I know. At least in RIF we were just trying to be
compatible with the RDF specs which (cwm not withstanding) do not
specify normalization other than the IRI-compatible character encoding. 

Dave
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2011 08:47:48 UTC

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