[closeed] williams-02 s/URIref/IRI/g

Dear Stuart, Tex,

The RDF Core WG has considered the issue to do with the use of the term RDF
URI Reference, and its relationship with IRIs.

This was under the issue:


raised by Stuart in:


and by Tex in:


We closed the issue, accepting a substantive change but rejecting an
editorial change. From the minutes:

we read:
Item 15: williams-02

  RESOLVED: (prop jjc, second gk, agin 0, abst 0)
  The WG resolved to remove the NFC constraint on RDF URI references.
  RESOLVED (prop bwm, second gk, 0 agin, jjc abst)
  We continue to use the term "RDF URI reference" [although we note that
  the definition currently aligns with that of an absolute IRI ref.]

The rationale for the first change is that:
- this constraint is the difference between RDF URI References in the Last
Call WD of RDF Concepts, and IRI references in the Candidate Rec for XML
Namespaces 1.1.
- we had added this constraint reflecting our understanding of the advice
from the I18N-WG.
- we had clear more recent advice that this was a mistake:

The rationale for not making the second change is:
- any of the terms 'IRI ref', 'URI ref', 'RDF URI ref' is problematic.
- the problems we identified with the 'IRI ref' term includes the unfinished
status of the IRI draft, and the intent in XML Namespaces 1.1 to use an
erratum to refer to that when it is finished.
- XML Namespaces 1.1 does not seem, to some WG members, an appropriate home
for the definition of a key concept such as resource identifiers.

The WG agreed with Stuart that the term 'RDF URI reference' could be
confusing but disagreed that 'IRI' or 'IRI reference' would be less

We do not yet have the proposed text for the reworked section - however the
changes from the last call text will be limited. In particular, the
reference to XML Namespaces 1.1, and the use of the term IRI, will remain
informative, within a note. I will update you when that text is available.

Please reply to this email, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org
indicating whether this decision is acceptable.


Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2003 10:55:25 UTC