- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 12:22:28 +0900
- To: Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- CC: Andrew Cunningham <andrewc@vicnet.net.au>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@dfki.de>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-xg-lld@w3.org, public-i18n-core@w3.org
Hello Tom, On 2011/09/10 1:56, Tom Baker wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 12:36:02PM +1000, Andrew Cunningham wrote: >> Being in both Library and i18n camps, I'd stress the important of >> referencing IRIs. > > I see your point but don't see an easy way of doing this without changing the > whole emphasis in the report on "URIs" (e.g., a global search and replace > "s/URIs/IRIs/"?). Emphasizing IRIs would put us out of synch with the > five-star coffee cup message of Linked Data generally. Making the reference > prominently in the Scope section will get readers' attention. If the Linked > Data message is wrong to emphasize URIs (and not IRIs) _generally_, then maybe > we need a revised coffee cup message... As I have pointed out (see http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Graph-URIref) in another mail, "URI" in RDF essentially means "IRI". And you get the 4th star for using RDF, so strictly speaking, it's all covered. But I think you have a point here, and we should get Tim to update [1] with a comment that "URI" in RDF includes IRIs. Regards, Martin. > [1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html >
Received on Saturday, 10 September 2011 03:23:12 UTC