W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > October 2010

Re: [Fwd: ACTION-487 Assess potential impact of IRI draft on RDF/XML, OWL, and Turtle]

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:23:51 +0200
Cc: nathan@webr3.org, RDFA Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1226C990-C66E-4039-88F6-33EFF520FECE@w3.org>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Guys, help me out please: what is the difference between 3986 and 3987? These are the small things that we may have to update in the next version of RDF, too. If that is the case, then referring to 3987 may actually be the right way to go.

Ivan

On Oct 28, 2010, at 10:54 , Toby Inkster wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 03:13:39 +0100
> Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> 
>> Similarly, 'RDFa in XHTML' does not define 'URI reference' and the
>> reasonable assumption would be that these are inherited from RDF
>> Concepts or 3986.
>> 
>> Unfortunately RDFa has a definition  of CURIEs that normatively
>> references RFC 3987.
> 
> We should probably seek guidance from TAG regarding what normative
> reference to include for URIs/IRIs, as I assume they know the landscape
> and can guess what direction other XML/HTML/RDF-related specs are
> headed better than anyone on this WG can.
> 
> -- 
> Toby A Inkster
> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf






Received on Thursday, 28 October 2010 12:23:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:22 UTC