W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > March 2013

Re: tightenting up the Turtle grammar

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:50:48 +0000
Message-ID: <51530748.7050405@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org

On 27/03/13 14:31, Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote:
> On Mar 27, 2013, at 09:19 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> On 27/03/13 13:00, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>> I may be wrong. You could create some negative IRI evaluation tests to make the conversation more concrete. I'm not psyched to up the bar, but maybe others are. I understand that Jena warns about IRIs outside of NFC, which pushes users to produce IRIs which are more predictable, but does it 3987:validate IRIs?
> I'm rather surprised to learn there's no W3C IRI validator...
>> It tries to.
>> There is an online IRI validator
>> http://www.sparql.org/iri-validator.html
> ... which lacks any apparent documentation, or sanction beyond
> sparql.org / you.
> Having fed that a somewhat random string (using opt-alpha
> characters from my Mac, which are well within the realm of
> possible IRI strings) like the following, just to see what would
> happen, I'd hesitate to recommend it to users.  The output I got
> won't be useful to many, and indeed, it loses most of the chars
> I started with.  (Input and output posted as graphics, because
> it's the best way to ensure you see the same glyphs I do.) --

Eric asked specifically about Jena and that is an interface onto the 
Jena validator.

You are welcome to use the free service or not as you choose.  Helpful 
feedback to users@jena.apache.org please. We welcome patches to the OPEN 
SOURCE effort to provide an IRI library.  It is independent of the Jena 
RDF support.

Received on Wednesday, 27 March 2013 14:51:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:26 UTC