W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

URI-CG group chartered

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 19:30:47 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030401190246.02e31eb8@127.0.0.1>
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

FYI, the URI CG is now officially chartered.

   URI Coordination Group
   http://www.w3.org/2001/12/URI/

"The mission of this group is to coordinate ongoing work in the area of
Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs); to serve as a coordinating body of
all issues involving URIs in the W3C and act as the coordinating body
for URI issues with other groups.

This includes:

       * coordination of URI issues between W3C and the IETF, including
         monitoring maintenance of IETF/IANA URI scheme registries,
         updating and maintaining materials and documentation on the W3C
         site relevant to URIs, and promoting development of
         supplementary guidelines
       * coordinating review of use of URIs in W3C specifications
       * bringing architectural issues and recommendations to the
         attention of the TAG
       * acting as a resource for information and clarifications
         involving URI issues to the W3C Membership
       * working with other organizations on URI issues where
         appropriate"

(These details copied from DanC's announcment to other lists)

...

Back in the mists of 2002, I volunteered to act as RDFcore liaison for this 
group.

As yet, there's been little activity.  It might be worth noting that Roy 
Fielding is working on a revision to RFC2396 (version available at: 
http://www.apache.org/~fielding/uri/rev-2002/rfc2396bis.html).

The IETF URI BOF (a week or so ago) also had some discussion or IRIs.

There were a couple of things raised at the IETF meeting that may be of 
relevance to RDFcore:

(1) a suggestion that "resources" don't exist unless a URI is defined for 
them.  (I raised an objection to this --because we have bnodes-- which was 
somewhat brushed aside with "If RDF has a problem with URIs its RDF's 
problem not URI's problem.  Since the matter is more philosophical than of 
practical import, I don't think it's a big deal.)

(2) allowed characters in IRIs may include space, '<', '>':  this might 
cause some complications for the adoption of IRIs into RDF:  how to 
represent IRIs in RDF containing these characters?  I think these are 
surmountable problems, but ones should be considered before just saying 
that RDF uses IRIs.

#g
--


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2003 13:59:34 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:56:49 EDT