Re: Other issues?

Mischa,

On Mar 9, 2011, at 19:54 , Mischa Tuffield wrote:
<snip/>
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 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. 
> 

Actually... there is a revision coming on RDFa. What you should look at, if you can, is 

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html

which is the editor's draft of what will soon be a 2nd last call document for RDFa 1.1. It would be great if you could look at it with a fresh eye with this issue in your mind...

Thanks

Ivan

> 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
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf