Re: Identity of URIRefs / Resources

Reto,

> 
> As I said, I agree that it is not a valid URI. But it is a valid URIRef
> according to section 6.4 of rdf-concepts

I'm wrong.  You are correct, as per
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-testcases-20040210/#rdf-charmod-uris>.  It
seems that, as a concequence of the unusual rules, an escaped URIRef is not the
same and the non-escaped URIRef.  Hense these two URIRefs are different:

1) <http://example.org/#Andr%C3%A9>
2) <http://example.org/#André>

Questions: Is the first URIRef represent as an actual URI as
<http://example.org/#Andr%25C3%25A9>?  Is the second URIRef represented as an
URI as the first one?

> Section 3.2 (http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-URI-Vocabulary)
> puzzles me saying
>         
>         A node may be a URI with optional fragment identifier (URI
>         reference, or URIref), a literal, or blank [...]
> 
> since much less Strings are "URI with optional fragment identifier" than
> valid URIRefs according to section 6.4.

The spec seems to be using URI kinda loosely.  They are URIRefs and not URIs
themselves.

Thanks for the head's up.  :-D



--
Jimmy Cerra
https://nemo.dev.java.net


		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html