W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2011

Re: first cut at proposing closure for the RDFCore legacy issue list

From: Alex Hall <alexhall@revelytix.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:23:36 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTinppi9uFEqnRJva-tVd-_i29Zutpg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, David Wood <david.wood@talis.com>
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>wrote:

> Nice work Dan.
> On 14 Apr 2011, at 14:18, Dan Brickley wrote:
> > rdfms-qnames-can't represent-all-uris: The RDF XML syntax cannot
> > represent all possible Property URI's.
> >
> > CONTINUE: Noted, RDF/XML does not allow all possible property URIs to
> > be represented. This issue remains open, while the WG explores the
> > impact of IRIs on RDF; however
> > RDF/XML is unlikely to change beyond the basic minimum needed. Other
> > formats (Turtle, n-triples) are available as alternatives to RDF/XML
> > where difficult property
> > names are unavoidable. Vocabulary authors have an incentive to choose
> > RDF property URIs that will work with all syntaxes, including classic
> > RDF/XML."
> Propose to CLOSE instead. This is a long-known problem in RDF/XML, users
> have learned to live with it, there is no easy fix, and updating from
> URIrefs to IRIs is unlikely to change anything here.

+1 - The character string "http://example.com/" cannot be made into an XML
QName, regardless of whether treated as a URIref or IRI.  Making that usable
as a predicate IRI in RDF/XML would involve a more far-reaching change to
the syntax than I think this WG cares to take on.

Received on Friday, 15 April 2011 19:24:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:05 UTC