- From: Damian Steer <pldms@mac.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:43:30 +0100
- To: Mischa Tuffield <mischa.tuffield@garlik.com>
- Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 29 Jul 2010, at 15:05, Mischa Tuffield wrote: > Hello, > > On 29 Jul 2010, at 13:51, Damian Steer wrote: >> Personally I would follow IRI and fix turtle. Why should RDF have its own URL/URI/IRI-ish syntax? > > Do you think that the same logic should be applied to rdfxml too ? Otherwise there will be things you can write in turtle and not in rdfxml which you can subsequently sparql, which simply doesn't feel right to me. Oh yes, s/URIRef/IRI/ everywhere possible. For reference, [1] provides the rationale for the original decision not to do this substitution. Damian [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0031.html>
Received on Thursday, 29 July 2010 14:44:08 UTC