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

Re: isIRI or isURI

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:45:11 -0400
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20051014134510.GV17622@w3.org>
I mis-handled the URI/IRI issue by responding to Björn without going
to the WG. I probably though I had some mandate from the WG, possibly
associated with changing the terms in rq23 but not the grammar, but
regardless, it's a bit of a mess now.

Below, Andy makes a pitch for having both isURI and isIRI. I'm willing
to do that. The history:

  1 In the beginning Tim created the URLs and the Web.

  2 The URLs were with domain names, and fragments; and resolution was
  on the face of the web. And the specter of resolution requirements
  was hovering over the face of ephemoral documents.

  3 Then Tim said, "Let there be identifiers"; and there were URIs.

  4 And Martin saw the URIs, that they were good; but they divided the
  Asian from the Latin.

  5 Martin called the URIs IRIs, and the URIs he called obselete. So
  the world's domain names and paths were at last on the web.


So basically, RFC3987 chose to invent IRIs rather than refine
URIs. I'm buying into a PR campaign to tell the world about IRIs.
We have to way this against the more well-known term "URI". Do we
sacrifice some shared context in order to promote this new concept?

  +.5 to having isIRI only

On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 07:16:16PM +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 01:51:12PM +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> >
> >>The document uses both isIRI (sec 11.2) and isURI (example, grammar).  
> >>The tests uses isURI.  I can't find a use isIRI in the email archives.
> >>
> >>Which should it be?  Or both?
> >>
> >>Also:
> >>
> >>11.2.3.3 says:
> >>
> >>"Returns whether a variable is bound to a URI."
> >>
> >>which should be IRI?
> >
> >
> >isIRI is correct.
> >Revision 1.506  2005/10/11 13:42:03  eric
> >~ s/isIri/isURI/ -- some snuck back in but AndyS caught them.
> >
> 
> I'd like to see both "isURI()" and "isIRI()" because "URI" is the commonly 
> used term.  I am glad we are using IRIs - I just don't think that means 
> exclusive to common practice.
> 
> I did a completely ad hoc experiment: I used Google to search for some
> terms.  Results:
> 
> RDF IRI      =>      50,300 hits
> RDF URI      =>   2,040,000 hits
> RDF URI IRI  =>      23,000 hits
> 
> For RDF IRI, www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/ is the #2 hit after 
> rdf-concepts
> 
> 	Andy
> 
> 
> PS Yes - I'm biased - I have released code using "isURI" but there is also 
> http://www.dajobe.org/2005/04-sparql/ 
> (http://www.dajobe.org/2005/04-sparql/SPARQLreference-1.7.pdf)



I just built one with both.
-- 
-eric

office: +81.466.49.1170 W3C, Keio Research Institute at SFC,
                        Shonan Fujisawa Campus, Keio University,
                        5322 Endo, Fujisawa, Kanagawa 252-8520
                        JAPAN
        +1.617.258.5741 NE43-344, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
cell:   +81.90.6533.3882

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

Received on Friday, 14 October 2005 13:45:24 GMT

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