- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 12:01:28 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-comments Comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>, Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>, Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Dan, On 8 Aug 2012, at 00:14, Dan Brickley wrote: > Does Sindice keep a cache of raw crawled RDF somewhere? My understanding is that there are caches of raw bytes. > I know this would be extra work for someone though :( I can't speak for Giovanni, but I think this might be a slight understatement given that the standard Sindice infrastructure cannot be used, and given that the behaviour of normal off-the-shelf components and of the whole SPARQL stack with regard to spaces in URIs would need to be carefully looked into to analyze this (in other words, this isn't a job for an intern). It may not be worth it. Some points: 1. RDF 2004 is the only standard on the planet that allows spaces in URIs/IRIs 2. This is the result of historical accident and WG timing (the IRI spec was still in draft status, and the 2004 RDF-WG thought it important to remain compatible with early IRI drafts) 3. Spaces in URIrefs don't actually work interoperably in implementations of RDF 2004 4. Spaces in URIrefs don't work within the broader RDF stack (SPARQL doesn't support them) 5. Not a single instance where spaces in URIrefs are used intentionally has been shown 6. Not a single instance where SPARQL's non-support for spaces in IRIs has led to user complaints has been shown 7. The RDF-WG charter asks the WG to update RDF to follow SPARQL with regard to IRIs To me, this is sufficient evidence that the change we made for RDF 1.1 is the right thing to do. Best, Richard
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2012 11:02:13 UTC