- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:30:07 -0500
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, nathan@webr3.org, RDFA Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
RDFa Syntax has consciously chosen to use IRIs and to say that the lexical space is CURIE for our datatypes, while the value space is URI [1]. In RDFa Core, we should be consistent with this. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#s_curies On 10/28/2010 1:03 PM, Toby Inkster wrote: > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:23:51 +0200 > Ivan Herman<ivan@w3.org> wrote: > >> Guys, help me out please: what is the difference between 3986 and >> 3987? > RFC 3986 is URI; RFC 3987 is IRI. URIs are US-ASCII only; IRIs are > Unicode and allow characters beyond U+007F in many places. Many > protocols and formats are not Unicode aware, so the IRI RFC defines a > mapping from IRIs to URIs. (A mapping in the reverse direction is > unnecessary as all URIs are automatically IRIs.) > > All things being equal, we probably want to use IRIs - they allow > people to use non-Latin characters in identifiers which is likely to > be a boon for RDFa's acceptability in cultures where the usual > alphabets are not derived from the Latin alphabet (e.g. Chinese, > Greek, Japanese, Thai, Iranian, etc). > > The problem is that RDF itself uses URIs as it was defined prior to to > existence of IRIs, so this would be an inconsistency between RDF and > RDFa. However, this doesn't seem to have proved a practical problem for > SPARQL which uses IRIs. We should get advice from TAG as they may be > able to provide us with information on what direction RDF is likely to > go (stick with URIs or switch to IRIs). > -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2010 18:30:49 UTC