- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:01:45 -0500
- To: public-owl-comments <public-owl-comments@w3.org>
I wanted to make sure that you know that a revision to RFC 3987 is in the works. In the event 3987bis changes the set of syntactically correct IRIs relative to 3987, this could be a problem for interoperability between OWL (which cites 3987 normatively, see [1]) and other standards. I don't consider this to be a major risk, as the problem cases, if they exist at all, will in my assessment be highly unlikely. So my message is just a heads-up, not a call for any kind of action. The IRI WG charter [2] suggests (to me) that compatibility is to be maintained by vigilance, not by construction: "* The IRI specification(s) must (continue to) be suitable for normative reference with Web and XML standards from W3C specifications. The group should coordinate with the W3C working groups on HTML5, XML Core, and Internationalization, as well as with IETF HTTPBIS WG to ensure acceptability." You might want to try to satisfy yourselves that this gives adequate protection for OWL. If I understand correctly, 3987bis may change the way IRIs are converted to URIs, even if it doesn't change the set of allowable IRIs. This has no impact on the OWL or RDF specs as such a translation never comes into play, but it could have an effect on deployed OWL processors. If the reference in RDF Concepts to "[IRI draft] or its successors" [3] would allow an RDF processor to follow 3987bis, one could conceivably end up with a situation of an RDF+3987bis processor unable to interoperate with an OWL+3987 processor. (On a related note I haven't verified that OWL/3987 IRIs are the same set of strings as "RDF URI References"; if not then OWL and RDF already have an interoperability problem.) IRI issues have received a lot of attention in W3C. In the XML world we have 'anyURI' as defined for XSD 1.1 [4] and many other documents normatively referring to the LEIRI specification [5]. I don't know whether LEIRI would be appropriate for OWL or RDF. Another hedge against changing IRIs would be to adopt a generic policy for normative reference to changing specifications, but no consensus has emerged on how to do this or even whether it's a good idea. Best Jonathan [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#IRIs [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/iri/charter/ [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Graph-URIref [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#anyURI [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/leiri/
Received on Thursday, 18 November 2010 22:02:16 UTC