- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 13:56:57 +0000
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- CC: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Nathan wrote: >> However, if you take a look at the URI spec RFC 3986, you'll see that >> "an absolute URI with an optional fragment identifier" is the very >> definition of 'URI' and not 'URI Reference'. >> >> URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ] >> >> see: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3 >> >> So, why are we all saying URI Reference, and talking about URI >> References when in fact we mean 'URI, not URI-Reference'? > > First, note that "RDF URI Reference" is a term on its own and is not > equivalent to "URI Reference". As for "URI" versus "URI Reference", > RFC 3986 was published in 2005, while the RDF specfication is from > 2004 and references RFC 2396 where the terminology is somewhere be- > tween different and unclear in this regard. RFC 3986 discusses some > of the differences. Ahh, so it's URI Reference from 2396: URI-reference = [ absoluteURI | relativeURI ] [ "#" fragment ] with the absoluteURI constraint. Thanks for clarifying, along with Damien, Best, Nathan
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2010 13:58:03 UTC