Re: RFC 3986 and RDF URI reference

On 7/4/06 17:39, "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote:7/4/06 17:39

>> > So, yes, I think it would be OK to say URI (or IRI) now, but that change
>> can't 
>> > appear in the RDF spec until a new revision is published.  (As a practical
>> > matter, when referring to RDF-concepts, it might be helpful to acknowledge
>> the 
>> > other term.) 
> 
> Would you really say so, Graham? Surely it¹s best to press forward wherever
> possible with the new 3986 terminology ­ URI instead of URIref, which was
> always a rather clunky concept IMHO. (Maybe just acknowledge where there could
> be any possible ambiguity but even then to note that URIref is an historical
> term.)
> 
> I¹m also unclear that one can arbitrarily equivalence the constructs URI and
> IRI, but am no expert.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> Daniele Alessandrelli wrote:
>> > 
>> > Hello all, 
>> > 
>> > I am a bit puzzled about the concept of URI in RDF models given the
>> > difference between the RFC 2396 , which is mentioned directly in the RDF
>> > Concepts document [1], and the defintion in RFC 3986.
>> > 
>> > given the new RFC is it correct to use the term URI in place of what was
>> > defined as URIREF in RDF Concepts?
>> > 
>> > Thanks 
>> > Dany 
>> > 
>> > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Graph-URIref
> 
> RDF-concepts was drafted while RFC2386 was the current URI specification.
> Specifically, the form of identifier used by RDF allows a fragment identifier,
> which was not part of what RFC2396 allows in a "URI".  Since then, RFC3986 was
> introduced, reflecting consensus that the term URI should include any fragment
> identifier (but not relative URIs).  I guess that if we were drafting
> RDF-concepts today, we would just say "URI" (or, as Damian suggests, IRI).
> 
> So, yes, I think it would be OK to say URI (or IRI) now, but that change can't
> appear in the RDF spec until a new revision is published.  (As a practical
> matter, when referring to RDF-concepts, it might be helpful to acknowledge the
> other term.) 
> 
> #g 



********************************************************************************   
DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is
not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error
please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage
mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept
liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not
expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its agents.
Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents
accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this e-mail or
its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and 
attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Macmillan 
Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication. Macmillan 
Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered number 785998 
Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS   
********************************************************************************