- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:28:12 +0100
- To: Daniele Alessandrelli <daniele.alessandrelli@gmail.com>
- CC: semantic-web@w3.org
Daniele Alessandrelli wrote: > > Hello all, > > I am a bit puzzled about the concept of URI in RDF models given the > difference between the RFC 2396 , which is mentioned directly in the RDF > Concepts document [1], and the defintion in RFC 3986. > > given the new RFC is it correct to use the term URI in place of what was > defined as URIREF in RDF Concepts? > > Thanks > Dany > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Graph-URIref RDF-concepts was drafted while RFC2386 was the current URI specification. Specifically, the form of identifier used by RDF allows a fragment identifier, which was not part of what RFC2396 allows in a "URI". Since then, RFC3986 was introduced, reflecting consensus that the term URI should include any fragment identifier (but not relative URIs). I guess that if we were drafting RDF-concepts today, we would just say "URI" (or, as Damian suggests, IRI). So, yes, I think it would be OK to say URI (or IRI) now, but that change can't appear in the RDF spec until a new revision is published. (As a practical matter, when referring to RDF-concepts, it might be helpful to acknowledge the other term.) #g -- Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Friday, 7 April 2006 16:38:58 UTC