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

Re: Clarification of charmod-uri

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 01 May 2002 11:24:05 -0500
To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1020270246.30005.1369.camel@dirk>
On Tue, 2002-04-30 at 11:03, Aaron Swartz wrote:
> My true concern is that we are really changing
> what RDF means. We're no longer talking about URIs, but instead these
> magical identifiers that can have spaces and accents in them.

It seems to me that we're no longer talking about
URIs-as-specified-in-RFC2396, but instead URIs-as-used-and-implemented.

I think.

This is the opinion I seem to hold on odd-numbered days;
on even-numbered days, I tend to be more conservative, thinking
RDF should stick with 7-bit URIs until RFC2396 is updated.

> This is fine
> for a client or other user applications, but to mandate it for the base of
> RDF seems to simply be asking for trouble.

Quite. We have made a decision despite lack of consensus. In the W3C
process, that is how one asks for trouble; that is: our
request for candidate/proposed recommendation will include special
notice of this decision (as will Last Call working drafts, the
issues list, etc.); The Director will have to explicitly
confirm the decision (or support the objection and send us
back to the drawing board). The question of charter will
be addressed there, if not sooner.

It's not as though there's smooth sailing to be had if
we reverse the decision; we're likely to get an objection
from the I18N WG if we do that.

> If the i18n group wants to change what URIs are, they should get it passed
> thru the IETF, not making systems slightly incompatible with each other one
> spec at a time. I do not feel comfortable making a change to something as
> big as URIs in a group as small as ours. I fear many unseen ramifications of
> this change (incompatibility with previous encoding schemes, different
> encoding mechanisms across specs, etc.) that because of our smaller
> visibility (compared to URIs) may not be noticed in time.
> I ask the group to reconsider this decision,

This request doesn't seem to come with any new information. I certainly
don't see anything that changes my position, tentative as it is.

The point about the I18N WG and the IETF is perhaps well made, but
I was aware of it when we made our decision. The thing to do
at this point is to talk to the I18N WG. Brian, would you please
chat with Misha about that? Maybe via the SemWeb CG?

This question seems in order:

| 2) Am I correct in saying that this means that RDF will no longer be
| using URI-refs to identify Resources? Is this consistent
| with our charter?

Brian was present at the meeting where the decision was made, so
I assumed he agreed that yes, this is consistent with our charter. But
then he writes, in elaborating his dissent...

| 5.  This is pushing our charter; it violates the closest thing
|  I have to a principal for what is in and what is out of charter

So I would appreciate clarification from Brian, as chair, as
to whether this decision can be made within the bounds of this
group's charter as he understands it. I think I could support
him either way.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2002 12:24:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:57 UTC