- 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
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