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

Re: [Turtle] spec minutia

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:43:50 -0400
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20110717164348.GC9996@w3.org>
* Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> [2011-07-16 16:31+0100]
> On 15/07/11 17:17, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> >== RDF URI Reference ==
> >"RDF URI Reference" still shows up in three places. Should we change it
> >to IRI or wait for the RDF model spec to evolve? The same goes for
> >datatype URI which I assume will evolve towards an IRI.
> Slightly different - "RDF URI Reference" is a specific RDF term
> which we're changing.  A datatype URI is a normal URI.

SPARQL suggests that these are the same type:
  FILTER(datatype("MCMLXVII"^^my:romanNumeral) = my:romanNumeral)
         = <http://الوحدات.org/ضغط+الدم>)

> >== Base URI ==
> >Is "Base URI" such a universal concept that I should be hesitant about
> >s/Base URI/Base IRI/? (Note, this impacts grammar and definition.)
> Uniformly using "IRI" seems to me to be better.

big +1
objections? disqualifications? contra-indications?

> A para of text somewhere at the beginning of concepts, explaining
> this woudl be helpful but, as a spec, I think we should use be
> uniofrm and use the same, correct term everywhere.
> "RDF URI Reference" is a precursor for IRI.

I guess the paragraph at the top can explain why the Turtle spec
differs from (leads) the abstract syntax.

works for me.

> 	Andy

Received on Sunday, 17 July 2011 16:44:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:07 UTC