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

On 29 Jul 2010, at 15:43, Damian Steer wrote:

> 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] <>

Thanks for the link, being an undergrad at that point in time, I didn't know what RDF was. I am guessing the key part of that email you linked is the bit which states : 

>   RESOLVED (prop bwm, second gk, 0 agin, jjc abst)
>   We continue to use the term "RDF URI reference" [although 
> we note that
>   the definition currently aligns with that of an absolute IRI ref.]
>   ...
Which I don't think it true at the moment, but I may be wrong. 

Thanks for the link, 

Mischa Tuffield PhD
Homepage -
Garlik Limited, 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW
+44(0)845 645 2824
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD

Received on Thursday, 29 July 2010 16:44:51 UTC