Re: SPARQL: IRIs vs RDF URI References (badIRIRef)

>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20050721/ notes
> in section 2.2, "Note that all IRIs are absolute; they may or may
> not include a fragment identifier [3987, sec 3.1].  Also note that
> IRIs include URIs [13] and URLs.  This definition also matches the
> definition of RDF URI Reference from [12]." My reading of the re-
> ference is that this is incorrect (depending on "matches"). RDF
> allows for example U+0020 in its notion of "URI reference".

Indeed.

I have added this to the WG issues list.
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#badIRIRef

Please stand by for a substantive response.

> Please
> change the draft such that it does not make such apparently con-
> tradictory statements.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E