W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > August 2012

Re: graham's comment re IRI

From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 11:56:21 -0400
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Message-Id: <4BC176E8-13F5-4A61-8BF8-F72B3B93CA31@3roundstones.com>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Hi Jeremy,

Yes, we do owe a formal response and your message below covers the relevant points nicely.  

Richard, would you like to respond to the authors of the thread in a single message since you are the Concepts editor?  Thanks.

Regards,
Dave




On Aug 7, 2012, at 09:49, Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com> wrote:

> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2012Aug/0019.html etc.
> 
> I am not sure if we are intending a formal response, my preference would be along the lines of:
> 
> a)  RDF 2004 has an explicit note anticipating the (then) forthcoming IRI spec (now RFC 3987)
> b) Some current software, essentially ignoring that note, complies with RDF 2004 but not with the IRI spec (and allows spaces etc.)
> c) The RDF 1.1 spec will, as chartered, align these two, and software that complies with RDF 1.1 will also comply with IRI; and yes implementations which wish to also support the older RDF spec may have some (not insurmountable) difficulty - e.g. be liberal with what you accept and conservative with what you publish
> 
> Jeremy
> 
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 15:56:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:06 UTC