<snip/> On 4 Nov 2010, at 14:06, Nathan wrote: > 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? FWIW this issue was brought up at the RDF Next Steps workshop [1], which subsequently led people to vote on which issues they thought the most important [2]. I have links to when I have brought this up before [3], but am sure others have brought it up way before me. Re: clarification from this point onwards, the below statements hints at the clarification: "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." <-- taken from http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Graph-URIref Mischa [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/Report.html [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/rdf-2010/results > Best, > > Nathan >
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2010 14:40:52 UTC