On Jan 17, 2011, at 13:16, Nathan wrote: > Dave Reynolds wrote: >> On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 16:52 +0000, Nathan wrote: >>> I'd suggest that it's a little more complex than that, and that this may be >>> an issue to clear up in the next RDF WG (it's on the charter I believe). >> I beg to differ. >> The charter does state: "Clarify the usage of IRI references for RDF >> resources, e.g., per SPARQL >> Query ยง1.2.4." >> However, I was under the impression that was simply removing the small >> difference between "RDF URI References" and the IRI spec (that they had >> anticipated). Specifically I thought the only substantive issue there >> was the treatment of space and many RDF processors already take the >> conservation position on that anyway. > > Likewise, apologies as I should have picked my choice of words more > appropriately, I intended to say that the usage of IRI references was up for > clarification, and if normalization were deemed an issue then the RDF WG may > be the place to raise such an issue, and address if needed.
I agree with that. The treatment of spaces is an example in the charter, not a constraint. Clarification may also occur in the updated RDF Primer if the community deems it necessary. Regards, Dave > > As for RIF and GRDDL, can anybody point me to the reasons why normalization > are not performed, does this have xmlns heritage? > > Best, > > Nathan >
