- From: James Cerra <jfcst24_public@yahoo.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 01:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Reto Bachmann-Gmuer <reto@gmuer.ch>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
Reto, > > As I said, I agree that it is not a valid URI. But it is a valid URIRef > according to section 6.4 of rdf-concepts I'm wrong. You are correct, as per <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-testcases-20040210/#rdf-charmod-uris>. It seems that, as a concequence of the unusual rules, an escaped URIRef is not the same and the non-escaped URIRef. Hense these two URIRefs are different: 1) <http://example.org/#Andr%C3%A9> 2) <http://example.org/#André> Questions: Is the first URIRef represent as an actual URI as <http://example.org/#Andr%25C3%25A9>? Is the second URIRef represented as an URI as the first one? > Section 3.2 (http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-URI-Vocabulary) > puzzles me saying > > A node may be a URI with optional fragment identifier (URI > reference, or URIref), a literal, or blank [...] > > since much less Strings are "URI with optional fragment identifier" than > valid URIRefs according to section 6.4. The spec seems to be using URI kinda loosely. They are URIRefs and not URIs themselves. Thanks for the head's up. :-D -- Jimmy Cerra https://nemo.dev.java.net __________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html
Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2005 08:48:02 UTC