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

Re: URI Comparisons: RFC 2616 vs. RDF

From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:02:34 -0500
Cc: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>, public-lod@w3.org
Message-Id: <BB54B68A-5903-4315-8534-F8BBF3E3ACE5@3roundstones.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
On Jan 17, 2011, at 13:16, 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 1.2.4."
>> 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.


I agree with that.  The treatment of spaces is an example in the charter, not a constraint.  Clarification may also occur in the updated RDF Primer if the community deems it necessary.

Regards,
Dave


> 
> 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 Tuesday, 18 January 2011 14:03:10 UTC

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