- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 12:18:40 -0500
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20050721/ notes > in section 2.2, "Note that all IRIs are absolute; they may or may > not include a fragment identifier [3987, sec 3.1]. Also note that > IRIs include URIs [13] and URLs. This definition also matches the > definition of RDF URI Reference from [12]." My reading of the re- > ference is that this is incorrect (depending on "matches"). RDF > allows for example U+0020 in its notion of "URI reference". Indeed. I have added this to the WG issues list. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#badIRIRef Please stand by for a substantive response. > Please > change the draft such that it does not make such apparently con- > tradictory statements. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 1 August 2005 17:18:43 UTC