W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2002

RE: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-03-22

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:31:58 -0000
To: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDGEHJCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>
> 13: Internationalization


Fine.


>
>
> 14: IRI's
> Wheras nodes in an RDF graph are labelled with URI's and the
> standards for internationalization of URI's are not yet stable
>
> Propose the WG:
>
>   1) resolves that nodes in RDF graphs are labelled with standard
> web identifiers
>
>   2) resolves that the current standard web identifier is a URI
> as defined by RFC 2396
>
>   3) resolves that resolution 2 above may be updated by an errata
> to the specifications as new standards evolve.
>

This is unclear. First my counterproposal, second a critique of the chair's
proposal.

Counterproposal.

 Propose the WG:

   1) resolves that nodes in RDF graphs are labelled with standard
      web identifiers

   2) resolves that the current standard web identifier is a URI
      as defined by RFC 2396, in its original character sequence
      (in UTF-8)

   3) notes that the use of identifiers of resolution 2 that are
      not in normal form C presents internationalisation
      difficulties and security risks

   4) resolves that resolution 2 above may be updated by an errata
      to the specifications as new standards evolve.

   5) that equality between the identifiers of resolution 2 is
      binary identity.


The chair's proposal is unclear:

 + RFC 2396 talks about both "original character sequences" and percent
encoded URIs. The proposed resolution (2) does not disambiguate,
particularly given the web context.

 + M&S undoubtedly licenses some use of non-US ascii URIs e.g.
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-
about/test2.rdf

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
 <rdf:Description rdf:ID="Durst">
  <rdf:value>abc</rdf:value>
 </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

e.g.
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
         xmlns:eg="http://example.org/it#">
   <eg:Paghero rdf:about="http://example.org/fraudulent.html">
      <eg:ricevera rdf:resource="mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com"/>
   </eg:Paghero>
</rdf:RDF>

 + M&S plausibly currently indicates that these should not be % escaped for
the purposes of constructing the graph.
  See:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0012.html

Since the last point is based on what XML has to say about URIs it is at
least plausible that this is a standard usage of web identifiers!

Jeremy

PS There has been off-list traffic between me and Brian in which I have
expressed the opinion that:
- the IRI part of charmod is unstable.
- currently the IRI part of charmod depends on an IRI draft by Masinter and
Durst
- that IRI draft is also unstable

This is in contrast with the NFC requirement on literals which has been a
stable requirement from the last several revisions of charmod.

As far as I can tell there is a genuine difference of opinion between us as
to how to respond to the lack of stability from I18N. My view being that we
have to respond to our I18N responsibilities independently of the stability
of other standards, I would strongly resist a minimalist US ascii only
resolution.
Received on Friday, 22 March 2002 05:33:02 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:20 EDT