- From: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 17:14:13 -0500
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: WebID Community Group <public-webid@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAGR+nnGKV4XS4Sq9rzsW-yB0XGZS0dv3wMSkw3hG_fCQF0iC3Q@mail.gmail.com>
seems like a no brainer. I'll wait for the spec to become a bit more stable before making these changes. Steph On Nov 23, 2012 4:43 PM, "Nathan" <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > WebID Community Group Issue Tracker wrote: > >> WebID-ISSUE-71 (uri-iri): Switch from URI to IRI terminology [WebID >> definition] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2005/**Incubator/webid/track/issues/**71<http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/track/issues/71> >> >> Raised by: Stéphane Corlosquet >> On product: WebID definition >> >> A few people mentioned using the term "IRI" instead of "URI" in the WebID >> specifications. Antoine mentioned it at [1], Larry Masinter alluded to it >> at [2] and Kingsley at [3]. >> >> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-webid/2012Oct/** >> 0241.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2012Oct/0241.html> >> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/www-tag/2012Nov/0024.**html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Nov/0024.html> >> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-webid/2012Nov/** >> 0216.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2012Nov/0216.html> >> > > +1 to IRI, as per RDF specifications - perhaps we're just used to saying > URI in conversations - can't see how we can possibly go back to URI (even > RDF 1.0 didn't use URI!) > > Cheers, > > Nathan > >
Received on Friday, 23 November 2012 22:14:43 UTC