Re: ACTION-79 discussion on URI vs. IRI in the specs

On 2011-05-26 05:46, Shane McCarron wrote:
> I had an action item to "update spec to talk about IRIs when we really
> mean IRIs". I have completed my review of RDFa Core and RDFa Syntax to
> ensure that we don't introduce any backward incompatibilities.... and
> now I am thoroughly confused. Follow me here:
>
>    1. RDFa Syntax clearly says that an expanded CURIE is a syntactically
>       valid IRI.
>    2. RDFa Syntax also includes by reference the XHTML Modularization
>       datatype URI for use in various attributes.
>    3. XHTML M12N defines the datatype URI as "A Uniform Resource
>       Identifier Reference, as defined by the type |anyURI| in XMLSCHEMA
>       <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/references.html#ref_xmlschema>."
>    4. The XML Schema anyURI type in the current Recommendation is a URI
>       as defined in RFC 2396 as amended by RFC 2732. This definition
>       DOES NOT include IRIs.
>    5. However, the lastest XML Schema Working Draft
>       (http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-xmlschema11-2-20091203/#anyURI)
>       defines anyURI to be an IRI. This was the *intent* of the XHTML
>       Working Group at the time of the publication of the final XHTML
>       Modularization (Stephen, please correct me if I am wrong).
>       However, the XML Schema spec is taking a while to get out the door.
>    6. Consequently, I posit that the *intent* of XHTML Modularization,
>       and therefore of RDFa Syntax, was that whenever we said URI we
>       really mean IRI.
>
> Independently, we recently had a discussion about whether the lexical
> space of a CURIE should be an IRI or not. The group agreed that it
> should. I was assigned this action item. Unfortunately, the specs are
> riddled with uses of the term URI. And I believe that in EVERY SINGLE
> CASE we mean IRI (as in RFC3987). I think that it would be confusing for
> our readers to use the term IRI everywhere. People just don't know what

That's why it's called "IRI everywhere" :-)

> that is, and it would steepen our learning curve. Therefore, I propose
> the following:

-0.5

IRIs are not URIs. People will learn the terminology when it's properly 
used.

>    1. In the 1 location where we reference RFC3987, we use the term IRI:
>       "When expanded, the resulting URI MUST be a syntactically valid
>       IRI [RFC3987]. For a more detailed explanation see CURIE and URI

A URI by definition is a IRI, so what is that requirement about?

>       Processing
>       <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#s_curieprocessing>.
>       The /lexical space/ of a CURIE is as defined in curie
>       <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#P_curie>
>       below. The /value space/ is the set of IRIs.".
>    2. In the 1 location where we reference RFC3986, we change the
>       reference to RFC3987: "Since RDFa is ultimately a means for
>       transporting RDF, a key concept is the /resource/ and its
>       manifestation as a URI. RDF deals with complete URIs (not relative
>       paths); when converting RDFa to triples, any relative URIs /must/
>       be resolved relative to the base URI, using the algorithm defined
>       in section 6.5 of RFC 3987 [RFC3987], /Relative IRI References/."

RFC 3986 does use "relative reference" instead of "relative URI".

>    3. We add another note in section 2 that says something like "The
>       term 'URI' is used throughout this specification. However, the
>       term is used in its generic sense. The actual value space of URIs

-1

That's not the "generic" sense.

> ...

Best regards, Julian

Received on Thursday, 26 May 2011 09:04:24 UTC