W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2010

Re: RDF 2.0 Wishlist - Legal RDF which I can't SPARQL

From: Mischa Tuffield <mischa.tuffield@garlik.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:44:15 +0100
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <731AE5FA-0119-4B79-B543-1C88CDDE006D@garlik.com>
To: Damian Steer <pldms@mac.com>

On 29 Jul 2010, at 15:43, Damian Steer wrote:

> 
> On 29 Jul 2010, at 15:05, Mischa Tuffield wrote:
> 
>> Hello, 
>> 
>> On 29 Jul 2010, at 13:51, Damian Steer wrote:
> 
>>> Personally I would follow IRI and fix turtle. Why should RDF have its own URL/URI/IRI-ish syntax?
>> 
>> Do you think that the same logic should be applied to rdfxml too ? Otherwise there will be things you can write in turtle and not in rdfxml which you can subsequently sparql, which simply doesn't feel right to me. 
> 
> Oh yes, s/URIRef/IRI/ everywhere possible. For reference, [1] provides the rationale for the original decision not to do this substitution.
> 
> Damian
> 
> [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0031.html>

Thanks for the link, being an undergrad at that point in time, I didn't know what RDF was. I am guessing the key part of that email you linked is the bit which states : 

>   RESOLVED (prop bwm, second gk, 0 agin, jjc abst)
>   We continue to use the term "RDF URI reference" [although 
> we note that
>   the definition currently aligns with that of an absolute IRI ref.]
>   ...
Which I don't think it true at the moment, but I may be wrong. 

Thanks for the link, 

Mischa 
___________________________________
Mischa Tuffield PhD
Email: mischa.tuffield@garlik.com
Homepage - http://mmt.me.uk/
Garlik Limited, 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW
+44(0)845 645 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
Received on Thursday, 29 July 2010 16:44:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:37 GMT