Re: Other issues?

Hi, 


On 9 Mar 2011, at 18:45, Ivan Herman wrote:

> Mischa,
> 
> On 9 Mar 2011, at 18:37, Mischa Tuffield <mischa.tuffield@garlik.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi All, 
>> 
>> A couple of questions for the group:
>> 
>> 1) I wonder if there is a place already on the wiki for capturing "other issues", the miscellaneous ones basically? For example, the URIRef vs IRI issue. 
>> 
> 
> David already referred to the wiki page. Additionally, new issues can be raised by people in the group, and then the group may or may not accept them.
> 
> That being said, isn't this issue already recorded?

Ok, I now see what is going on with the issue recordings, it is all starting to make sense to me. I have only ever been involved on an XG before, that was a lot less formal, apologies. I will stop going on about pre-recorded issues :)

> 
> 
>> 2) And whether or not the RDFa spec[1] is in or out of scope of this working group, as it is not listed in the charter as one of the documents which the group will be looking to update[1]? The reason I mention this is again, if we end up in a world where both SPARQL and RDF (lets say the Turtle serialisation) are using IRIs, developers would have to use a different URI encoding library for SPARQL & Turtle, from the one they would be using if there were to be serialising to RDFa. 
>> 
> 
> RDFa is certainly not in the scope of this group, there is a separate group for that one. That being said, afaik RDFa already uses IRIs, just like SPARQL. I explicitly copy this mail to Manu, who is the chair of that group.

Thanks, and yes I am aware that Manu is the chair of that group. I need to read the entirety of the RDFa rec [1], but it seems like the only place that IRIs are mentioned are in the CURIE section [2], and the rest of the document including [2] talks about URI References and not IRIs. 

But, ok, I now understand that RDFa is not in the scope of this group, thanks for the clarification. 

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#s_curies 
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#sec_3.10. 

> 
> Note, however, that RDFa is a bit special in the sence that it "lives" in another environment, namely HTML, which it cannot fully control...

Understood. 

Regards, 

Mischa

> 
> Cheers, 
> 
> Ivan
> 
> 
> 
>> Regards, 
>> 
>> Mischa *goes off to look into the back-compatibility of URIRefs to IRIs (any pointers existing work comparing the definitions would be much appreciated)
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/01/rdf-wg-charter#deliverables 
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#T_URI_reference 
>> 
>> ___________________________________
>> Mischa Tuffield PhD
>> Email: mischa.tuffield@garlik.com
>> Homepage - http://mmt.me.uk/
>> Garlik Limited, 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW
>> +44(0)845 652 2824  http://www.garlik.com/
>> Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
>> Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
>> 

___________________________________
Mischa Tuffield PhD
Email: mischa.tuffield@garlik.com
Homepage - http://mmt.me.uk/
Garlik Limited, 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW
+44(0)845 652 2824  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD