W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2010

Re: RDF 2.0 Wishlist - Legal RDF which I can't SPARQL

From: Damian Steer <pldms@mac.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:43:30 +0100
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-id: <222FD143-E93A-4262-86C0-E9FDE222B1D6@mac.com>
To: Mischa Tuffield <mischa.tuffield@garlik.com>

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.


[1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0031.html>
Received on Thursday, 29 July 2010 14:44:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:19 UTC