- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:36:19 -0500
- 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!] --Frank 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 >>>rhythm. >>> >>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