W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: call for agenda items for this weeks telecon (terminology)

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:36:19 -0500
Message-ID: <3E5FE463.6090106@mitre.org>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

However this is ultimately resolved, I want to note that the Primer 
initially says that RDF uses URI references, and henceforth abbreviates 
the term (where possible) as "URIrefs".  I would object on behalf of 
ordinary readers of English to replacing each occurrence in the Primer 
with "RDF URI Reference" (if that's the final terminology);  Dan's 
"bletch" would be a mild reaction if I had to do that (not by me, by the 
readers;  I can operate a "global replace").

I'd also note that the Concepts text that's being cited here

"A URI reference within an RDF graph (an RDF URI reference)..."

seems to effectively equate "RDF URI Reference" with "a URI reference 
within an RDF graph".  So is it a URI Reference or not?  Note that we're 
talking about *syntax* here (this is the abstract syntax section), 
rather than differences about what RDF chooses to use these things for 
(which seems to me a separate issue).  So are RDF URI references 
*syntactically* URI references or not? (I understand that not all URI 
references, e.g. relative URIs, are legit as RDF URI references;  but I 
think we cover that)

[BTW:  If we were going to make a major change here, I'd opt for 
something along the lines of Dan's "RDF identifier";  but then the 
Primer would have to change the whole discussion of how URLs generalize 
to URIs, and how this lets RDF do all sorts of wonderful things, and... 
I sure wouldn't like to have to do that!]


Dan Connolly wrote:

> On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 19:07, pat hayes wrote:
>>>This is the usual weekly call for items for this weeks telecon.
>>Regrets for tomorrow. I have to host a meeting here starting at that time.
>>>Items on my probables list include:
>>>- status of capturing last call comments
>>>- scheduling processing them
>>>- processing some of them
>>>The last of these requires that we have some proposed dispositions, 
>>>so I'm looking for suggestions.  I suggest we try to pick some 
>>>'easy' (is anything ever easy?) ones so we can start to work up a 
>>One easy one is getting some nomenclature consistent.
>>1.  What is correct: uriref, URIref, URI Reference ?
> RDF URI reference
> (blech)
>> Which document 
>>or source defines it?
> [[[
> A URI reference within an RDF graph (an RDF URI reference) is a Unicode
> string [UNICODE] that:
>       * is in Normal Form C [NFC] and
>       * would produce a valid URI character sequence (per RFC2396 [URI],
>         sections 2.1) when subjected to the encoding described below. 
> ]]]
>  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#dfn-URI-reference
> It seems to go by a number of synonyms...
> "... URIs with optional fragment identifiers
> (URI references, or URIrefs) ..."
>  -- 3.2 URI-based Vocabulary and Node Identification
> ... but the definition above is what the WG agreed
> 26th April 2002 regarding
>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-charmod-uris
> Bummer... the syntax spec seems to import using a different
> link:
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Graph-URIref
> from
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20021108/#section-Identifiers
> ah.. #section-Graph-URIref is the section that dominates
> #dfn-URI-reference. So that's clearly the same thing,
> technically. Seems worth fixing for editorial
> consistency.

Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 17:16:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:20 UTC