URIs versus URI references [was: My top two issues]

[in the hopes of being able to find these again in the future...]

On Mon, 2001-12-17 at 16:22, Mark Baker wrote:
> Hi all,
> In response to Tim's request for a list of some issues, I offer my
> thoughts.  This is by no means an exhaustive list.  I've just picked
> the ones that, to me, seem to be most urgent to resolve as they're
> either a) topical, b) potential sources of great pain in the future,
> or c) both 8-).  Luckily, I've only got two.
> Issue; URIs versus URI references
> This issue flares up every so often.  It involves disagreement about
> whether it's ok or not for RDF to make assertions with URI references.
> Given that the R in RDF stands for "resource", some feel that it should
> be limited to using URIs, not URI references, as URI references are not
> URIs and therefore do not identify resources.  Others don't see the
> problem.  I personally find it of great concern that so much of W3C work
> is using URI references instead of URIs, without considering the
> implications.  XML Schema datatypes does not include a URI type; anyURI
> is a URI reference.
> Aaron wrote up a good summary of this issue at [1].

>  [1] http://logicerror.com/fragmentProblems

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Monday, 17 December 2001 17:36:03 UTC