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

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.


On 10/28/2010 1:03 PM, Toby Inkster wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:23:51 +0200
> Ivan Herman<>  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:

Received on Thursday, 28 October 2010 18:30:49 UTC