- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:52:29 -0400
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> 1. They are a superset of URIs and specifying the superset seems like > the safe default course. If someone especially wanted a dialect with > syntactic restriction to URIs then they could add that restriction in > the dialect. Can somebody give a synopsis of URI vs. IRI? On the surface, it seems that IRIs are a superset, but in the last telecon I asked if this is true and somebody (forgot who) said that they aren't because IRIs use unicode and uris ascii. In any case, I made some small changes along the lines of what was discussed, which states that rif:uri can be a uri or a iri. Also, I proposed to the chairs (I think somebody also mentioned this at the telecon) to call this thing rif:resource. The issue whether it will be a uri or an iri can be decided later. If uris are a subset of iris then deciding either way for now (provided that we call it rif:resource) will be acceptable and can be changed later. If one is not a subset of the other then still the decision can be changed later without major consequences. --michael
Received on Friday, 13 April 2007 15:55:13 UTC