- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 14:06:57 +0000
- To: Damian Steer <pldms@mac.com>
- CC: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Damian Steer wrote: > On 04/11/10 14:00, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: >> Le 04/11/2010 14:54, Nathan a écrit : > >>> 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? >> >> I guess IRI should be the best choice. BTW, the OWL 2 specifications >> exclusively rely on IRIs in place where OWL 1 was using URIs and URI >> references. > > +1. > > SPARQL uses IRI [1] as does OWL 2, and RDFa Core is compatible via "Note that the resulting URI must be a syntactically valid IRI [RFC3987].", and RDFa API uses IRI. Is there any formal note anywhere addressing the "IRI wasn't published yet" issue? any way to make this clear to all from here forward? Best, Nathan
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2010 14:08:01 UTC