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@ivan-herman.name>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:09:45 +0200
Cc: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, "nathan@webr3.org" <nathan@webr3.org>, RDFA Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <400F25FE-4932-4B91-9050-947E45409BE6@w3.org>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Ok. Then we should indeed refer to IRI-s (b.t.w., that is what SPARQL does, too) and we can rely on the fact that RDF will, eventually, catch up.


On Oct 28, 2010, at 20:32 , Shane McCarron wrote:

> 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

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 Friday, 29 October 2010 09:09:01 UTC

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