- From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
- Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 12:52:49 +0200
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>, public-rdf-comments@w3.org
On 02/04/2021 15:39, Andy Seaborne wrote: > (...) > > Is it worth defining a piece of terminology e.g. "RDF Reference" to > collect the points together? The whole URL → URI → IRI (→ URL) renaming dance has been confusing enough. I fear that coining yet another term might mostly add to the confusion. > > Andy > > On 31/03/2021 17:48, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> RDF specifications talk a lot about IRIs. Sometimes, the distinction >> is made between absolute IRIs and relative IRIs. I discovered some >> time ago that this is inaccurate. >> >> According RFC3987 [1], IRIs can not be relative, only *IRI >> references* can. Therefore, "absolute IRI" is redundant (but >> correct), while "relative IRI" should be "relative IRI reference". >> >> Note that, from what I saw, this impacts the following documents: >> >> RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax >> RDF 1.1 Turtle >> RDF 1.1 TriG – RDF Dataset Language >> RDF 1.1 XML Syntax >> >> the others make use of "IRI", "absolute" and "relative" in a way >> that's consistent with RFC3987. >> >> pa >> >> [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt >> >
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2021 10:53:04 UTC