Re: graham's comment re IRI

Hi Jeremy,

Yes, we do owe a formal response and your message below covers the relevant points nicely.  

Richard, would you like to respond to the authors of the thread in a single message since you are the Concepts editor?  Thanks.


On Aug 7, 2012, at 09:49, Jeremy Carroll <> wrote:

> etc.
> I am not sure if we are intending a formal response, my preference would be along the lines of:
> a)  RDF 2004 has an explicit note anticipating the (then) forthcoming IRI spec (now RFC 3987)
> b) Some current software, essentially ignoring that note, complies with RDF 2004 but not with the IRI spec (and allows spaces etc.)
> c) The RDF 1.1 spec will, as chartered, align these two, and software that complies with RDF 1.1 will also comply with IRI; and yes implementations which wish to also support the older RDF spec may have some (not insurmountable) difficulty - e.g. be liberal with what you accept and conservative with what you publish
> Jeremy

Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 15:56:56 UTC