W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2003

RE: [closeed] williams-02 s/URIref/IRI/g

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 16:30:29 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F04A0745D@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Jeremy Carroll'" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, tex@i18nguy.com
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

Jeremy, RDF Core WG,

> Please reply to this email, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org
> indicating whether this decision is acceptable.

Thank you... I accept your decision on this issue. 

However, it remains my opinion that retention of the term "RDF URI
Reference" will be problematic.

Stuart
--

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 08 April 2003 15:54
> To: skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com; tex@i18nguy.com
> Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
> Subject: [closeed] williams-02 s/URIref/IRI/g
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Stuart, Tex,
> 
> The RDF Core WG has considered the issue to do with the use 
> of the term RDF
> URI Reference, and its relationship with IRIs.
> 
> This was under the issue:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#williams-02
> 
> raised by Stuart in:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMa
> r/0238.html
> 
> and by Tex in:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMa
> r/0460.html
> 
> We closed the issue, accepting a substantive change but rejecting an
> editorial change. From the minutes:
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0128.html
> 
> we read:
> [[
> Item 15: williams-02
>   ...
> 
>   RESOLVED: (prop jjc, second gk, agin 0, abst 0)
>   The WG resolved to remove the NFC constraint on RDF URI references.
>   ...
>   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.]
>   ...
> ]]
> 
> The rationale for the first change is that:
> - this constraint is the difference between RDF URI 
> References in the Last
> Call WD of RDF Concepts, and IRI references in the Candidate 
> Rec for XML
> Namespaces 1.1.
> - we had added this constraint reflecting our understanding 
> of the advice
> from the I18N-WG.
> - we had clear more recent advice that this was a mistake:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJu
n/0020.html


The rationale for not making the second change is:
- any of the terms 'IRI ref', 'URI ref', 'RDF URI ref' is problematic.
- the problems we identified with the 'IRI ref' term includes the unfinished
status of the IRI draft, and the intent in XML Namespaces 1.1 to use an
erratum to refer to that when it is finished.
- XML Namespaces 1.1 does not seem, to some WG members, an appropriate home
for the definition of a key concept such as resource identifiers.

The WG agreed with Stuart that the term 'RDF URI reference' could be
confusing but disagreed that 'IRI' or 'IRI reference' would be less
confusing.

We do not yet have the proposed text for the reworked section - however the
changes from the last call text will be limited. In particular, the
reference to XML Namespaces 1.1, and the use of the term IRI, will remain
informative, within a note. I will update you when that text is available.

Please reply to this email, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org
indicating whether this decision is acceptable.

Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2003 11:30:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:32 GMT