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

Issue #williams-02 s/URIref/IRI/

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:07:16 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com

At 17:48 20/02/2003 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:


> >
> > 4) Section 6. Abstract Syntax (Normative)
>Brian: name of issue is "s/URIref/IRI/"
> >
> > Prior to section 6 the document consistently uses the terms URI and URI
> > Reference. This section then switches to using the term "RDF URI 
> Reference".
> > This feels awkward. Firstly, typical informal usages is for "HTTP URI" 
> or an
> > "FTP URI" or a "MAILTO URI" to be use to speak of URI scheme specific URI,
> > hence "RDF URI Reference" is suggestive of an 'rdf' URI scheme which is not
> > the case. Secondly, the apparent need to prefix the term "URI Reference"
> > with 'RDF' leads one to ask what distiguishes an "RDF URI Reference" 
> from an
> > ordinary "URI Reference". Section 6.4 gives some account (more comments on
> > 6.4 below) - which indicates that the authors would probably have preferred
> > to be using Internationalised Resource Identifiers. It is unfortunate 
> that a
> > normative spec. for IRI's is not available for normative reference. I think
> > it would be better for section 6 to either speak of URI References a la
> > RFC2396 or to anticipate IRI and speak of them instead, in anticipation of
> > an appropriate work to reference. As is, the term "RDF URI Reference" might
> > be seen by some as yet another example of RDF taking some well understood
> > term and using it in a gratuitously different way.
> >
> > This document needs to decide whether it is dealing in URI or IRI and then
> > be consistent throughout.
>As you have understood the definition of an RDF URI reference
>is intended to be an IRI as understood by XML Namespaces 1.1.
>We could reference XML Namespaces 1.1 directly.
>Is your preferred change to globally substitute URI reference for
>IRI throughout the RDF recommendations? Or did you have something
>less extensive in mind?
>A further technicality is to do with Unicode NFC.
>The Namespace 1.1 defn does not mention this,
>although it is implicit in as much as Namespaces 1.1
>is understood within the context of XML 1.1,
>in which all attribute values must be in NFC.
>The RDF specs, structured differently, cannot
>piggy back such a feature on XML 1.1 which is
>not assumed by RDF. (In fact RDF Concepts tries
>hard not to assume XML but is intended to be
>open to languages like N3).


This comment has been recorded in


The RDFCore WG will consider this comment and get back to you in due course.

Thanks again for taking the time to review the WG's drafts.

Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 08:51:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:20 UTC