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

[JSON] URI vs IRI

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:59:13 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTikXQ7qNGp8KKQpY5-aFiJ=kZpZ1mUsBOB2mK64d@mail.gmail.com>
To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
As I understand / dimly remember, the RDFCore round of specs tried
their best to anticipate the IRI specs, but could only make normative
reference to the URI spec.

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/

"Note: this section anticipates an RFC on Internationalized Resource
Identifiers. Implementations may issue warnings concerning the use of
RDF URI References that do not conform with [IRI draft] or its
successors."

...whereas http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/
does not mention IRIs.

Meanwhile http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/ "Turtle uses IRIs
as term identifiers."

For JSON my assumption has been that we would use IRI. Can this be confirmed?

At the POI WG F2F we are looking at an example link to the page for
Amsterdam in the Korean Wikipedia. I hope these come through the list
OK.

1. the pretty link appears in Korean script (to me at least).

{
    "url": "http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/암스테르담"
}

2. if this is escaped so as to be a pre-IRI URI, we get instead an
ugly string, twice as many chars:

{
    "url": "http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%95%94%EC%8A%A4%ED%85%8C%EB%A5%B4%EB%8B%B4"
}

I'm agnostic for now, on question of where-or-whether this stuff gets
canonicalised. But I would like to express a preference that verbose
URI escape sequences are not imposed on eg. Korean URLs like the one
given here.

cheers,

Dan
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2011 09:59:44 UTC

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