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: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:32:37 -0500
Message-ID: <4CC9C1C5.3080803@aptest.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, "nathan@webr3.org" <nathan@webr3.org>, RDFA Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
I don't think we can.  We define a datatype of CURIE.  Datatypes have 
value space and lexical space.  The TAG and others required us to define 
the range for both of those spaces, and the mapping between them.

On 10/28/2010 1:31 PM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> 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.
>
> I
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman
> Tel:+31 641044153
> http://www.ivan-herman.net
>
>
>
> On Oct 28, 2010, at 20:03, Toby Inkster<tai@g5n.co.uk>  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).
>>
>> -- 
>> Toby A Inkster
>> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
>> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
>>

-- 
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 18:33:19 UTC

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