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

Re: review of July 15 draft of RDF Semantics document

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 09:58:33 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030729095657.02684760@127.0.0.1>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

For information, a restriction to non-relative URI forms in the normative 
section of Concepts was accidentally dropped in the editing process, and is 
being reinstated.

#g
--

At 02:31 29/07/03 -0500, pat hayes wrote:
>>The document http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/, referred to by
>>http://www.w3.org/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/ as the definition of
>>URIref, only requires that a URIref be a Unicode string that would produce
>>a valid URI under a certain encoding.
>>
>>This appears to allow for any sort of URI, including relative URIs, which
>>could clash with the Lbase special names.
>
>This entire issue was beneath the radar when the Lbase note was written. I 
>do not consider it to be a matter worthy of discussion, since Lbase is not 
>intended to be a language for processing by machines, and the note says 
>explicitly that the exact syntax is not important. If any such syntactic 
>accident should arise it can treated in an ad-hoc manner, eg by writing 
>all URIrefs in one font and the special names in a different font.

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2003 09:43:41 GMT

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