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

Ok. Thanks. 

One issue that the new a RDF WG will have to handle is to settle the URI/IRI issue. Thr charter is not yet public (but almost) but I can say that this is one of the entries on the charter. My feeling is that the curie-s in RDFa should refer to RDF and let then RDF sort this issue out. Let us keep away from this issue here.


Ivan Herman
Tel:+31 641044153

On Oct 28, 2010, at 20:03, 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).
> -- 
> Toby A Inkster
> <>
> <>

Received on Thursday, 28 October 2010 18:31:02 UTC