- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:19:24 +0100
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Michael Kifer wrote:
>> Michael Kifer wrote:
>>> Thanks. I think this answers my question.
>>> My concern was that there might be an IRI, x, such that its encoding as a URI,
>>> f(x), is not equivalent to x *as an IRI*.
>>> You seems to be saying that this is not possible.
>> Sandro's Kanji example illustrates that this is possible. If an IRI i
>> isn't itself a URI then the URI encoding of it must be different. Unless
>> you specify some normalization f(i) and i are different.
>
> Of course they are different. I was talking of them being *equivalent*.
RFC3987 uses the term "different" as the negation of "equivalent":
[[[ (Section 5.1)
For this reason, determination
of equivalence or difference of IRIs is based on string comparison,
perhaps augmented by reference to additional rules provided by URI
scheme definitions. We use the terms "different" and "equivalent" to
describe the possible outcomes of such comparisons, but there are
many application-dependent versions of equivalence.
]]]
and goes on to say:
[[[
Applications using IRIs as identity tokens with no relationship to a
protocol MUST use the Simple String Comparison (see section 5.3.1).
]]]
I claim RIF usage, like RDF usage, would fall under this clause and so
we would not specify any additional normalization step or RIF-specific
notion of equivalence. Hence the properties described in Jeremy's
semi-parallel email apply.
Dave
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 11:19:44 UTC