Official RDFa Response: ISSUE-87: IRIs vs URI References

Mischa,

Thank you for reviewing and commenting on the RDFa Core 1.1
specification. This is an official response to your 2nd Last Call
comments on RDFa Core 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1. The issue is being tracked
here:

ISSUE-87: IRIs vs URI References
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/87

You had asked the Working Group to make sure that the terminology used
in the RDFa Core 1.1 specification matches that used in the other
Semantic Web documents (like SPARQL, RDF and the soon-to-be REC-track
TURTLE specification).

We had initially decided to stick with the URI References terminology
because it referenced the IRI specification [RFC3987], and so was
technically correct. However, as we discussed the issue in more depth,
it became clear that staying with the older terminology might confuse
readers. We decided to migrate to the new "IRI" terminology to come in
line with the rest of the documents that you mentioned and to make it
clear to readers that RDFa is a fully internationalized technology. The
decision was recorded here:

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-05-19#resolution_1

Since this is an official response, please let us know as soon as you
can if this decision satisfies your concerns by responding to this
e-mail, ensuring to CC the RDFa WG mailing list.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: PaySwarm Developer Tools and Demo Released
http://digitalbazaar.com/2011/05/05/payswarm-sandbox/

Received on Saturday, 28 May 2011 18:21:04 UTC