- From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 11:56:21 -0400
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
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. Regards, Dave On Aug 7, 2012, at 09:49, Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com> wrote: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2012Aug/0019.html 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