- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 13:54:33 +0000
- To: Damian Steer <pldms@mac.com>
- CC: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Damian Steer wrote: > On 04/11/10 13:29, Nathan wrote: >> Hi All, > >> However, the definition of an "RDF URI Reference" is: >> >> "an absolute URI with optional fragment identifier" > > That's not the definition, and you've missed a significant of that > sentence: > > "A URI reference within an RDF graph (an RDF URI reference) is a Unicode > string [UNICODE] that: > > * does not contain any control characters ( #x00 - #x1F, #x7F-#x9F) > * and would produce a valid URI character sequence (per RFC2396 [URI], > sections 2.1) representing an absolute URI with optional fragment > identifier when subjected to the encoding described below." > > Note that "...representing an absolute URI with optional fragment > identifier * when subjected to the encoding described below *". URIRef > allows characters that URI doesn't. > > The explanation: > > "Note: this section anticipates an RFC on Internationalized Resource > Identifiers. Implementations may issue warnings concerning the use of > RDF URI References that do not conform with [IRI draft] or its successors." > > i.e. "we wanted to use IRI, but it hadn't finished". Makes sense, so, many recent docs, formal and informal, mention explicitly "URI Reference" rather than "RDF URI Reference", "URI" or "IRI" - for future docs which term should be used? Best, Nathan
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2010 13:55:39 UTC