W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2005

[Fwd: SPARQL: IRIs vs RDF URI References]

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 15:41:04 +0100
Message-ID: <4343E600.1080408@hp.com>
To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

Checking the rq23, I found one last mention of RDF URI Reference in section 
2.2 as per this comment.

I have simply removed the discussion of RDF URI reference from v1.496

"""
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 [RFC3986] and URLs.
"""

Dan, please confirm that this changes is responsive to the comment and 
consistent with WG proceedings.

	Andy


Background:

The difference is that RDF URI References permit space in anticipation of the 
direction that IRIs would go but in the end RFC 3987 does not allow a literal 
space in an IRI.

RFC 3987 says:
    iunreserved    = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~" / ucschar
    ucschar        = %xA0-D7FF / %xF900-FDCF / %xFDF0-FFEF ...

and in addition:

"""
    Systems accepting IRIs MAY also deal with the printable characters in
    US-ASCII that are not allowed in URIs, namely "<", ">", '"', space,
    "{", "}", "|", "\", "^", and "`", in step 2 above.  If these
    characters are found but are not converted, then the conversion
    SHOULD fail.
"""
(step 2 is %HH encoding)


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: SPARQL: IRIs vs RDF URI References
Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 00:08:06 +0000
Resent-From: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 02:07:52 +0200
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org


Dear RDF Data Access Working Group,

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

regards,
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2005 14:41:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:24 GMT