--- a/rdf-concepts/index.html Tue Oct 30 07:05:51 2012 -0700
+++ b/rdf-concepts/index.html Tue Nov 06 10:55:56 2012 +0000
@@ -254,14 +254,13 @@
<a title="RDF statement">RDF statements</a>.</li>
</ul>
- <p class="issue">This should explain better that IRIs in RDF play
- two roles—as globally unique identifiers in a graph data model that
- describes resources, and as
- starting points for RESTful interaction with these resources
- (like elsewhere in the Web).
- This specification is only concerned with the first aspect.
- Alignment between the two aspects is generally important, but out
- of scope for this spec.</p>
+ <p>Perhaps the most important characterisitic of <a title="IRI">IRIs</a>
+ in web architecture is that they can be
+ <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-dereference">dereferenced</a>,
+ and hence serve as starting points for interactions with a remote server.
+ This specification, however, is not concerned with such interactions.
+ It does not define an interaction model. It only treats IRIs as globally
+ unique identifiers in a graph data model that describes resources.</p>
</section>
<section id="vocabularies">
@@ -275,9 +274,6 @@
RDF vocabularies. Some such vocabularies are mentioned in the
Primer [[RDF-PRIMER]].</p>
- <p class="issue">The material below may be moved to the new
- <em>RDF 1.1 Primer</em> document once it becomes available.</p>
-
<p>The <a title="IRI">IRIs</a> in an <a>RDF vocabulary</a> often share
a common substring known as a <dfn>namespace IRI</dfn>.
Some namespace IRIs are associated by convention with a short name
@@ -318,11 +314,6 @@
is presumed or demonstrated then the truth of <em>B</em> can be inferred.
An account of meaning and entailment in RDF, using the formalism of
model theory, is given in [[RDF-MT]].</p>
-
- <p class="issue">The Working Group is considering removing the
- <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#rules">informative entailment rules</a>
- from the <em>RDF Semantics</em> document, and moving them to another
- document. Moving them to this document is one possibility.</p>
</section>
@@ -338,6 +329,9 @@
<a>RDF graph</a> in a <dfn>concrete RDF syntax</dfn>, such as
Turtle [[TURTLE-TR]], RDFa [[RDFA-PRIMER]], RDF/XML [[RDF-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR]],
or N-Triples [[N-TRIPLES]].</p>
+
+ <p class="issue">Can the difference between data model and
+ serialization be hammered home more clearly?</p>
</section>
@@ -429,9 +423,9 @@
<p>An <dfn title="IRI"><acronym title="Internationalized Resource Identifier">IRI</acronym></dfn>
(Internationalized Resource Identifier) within an RDF graph
is a Unicode string [[!UNICODE]] that conforms to the syntax
- defined in RFC 3987 [[!IRI]]. IRIs are a generalization of
+ defined in RFC 3987 [[!RFC3987]]. IRIs are a generalization of
<dfn title="URI"><acronym title="Uniform Resource Identifier">URI</acronym>s</dfn>
- [[URI]]. Every absolute URI and URL is an IRI.</p>
+ [[RFC3986]]. Every absolute URI and URL is an IRI.</p>
<p>IRIs in the RDF abstract syntax MUST be absolute, and MAY
contain a fragment identifier.</p>
@@ -440,21 +434,28 @@
Two IRIs are equal if and only if they are equivalent
under Simple String Comparison according to
<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987#section-5.1">section 5.1</a>
- of [[!IRI]]. Further normalization MUST NOT be performed when
+ of [[!RFC3987]]. Further normalization MUST NOT be performed when
comparing IRIs for equality.</p>
<p class="note">When IRIs are used in operations that are only
defined for URIs, they must first be converted according to
the mapping defined in
<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987#section-3.1">section 3.1</a>
- of [[!IRI]]. A notable example is retrieval over the HTTP
+ of [[!RFC3987]]. A notable example is retrieval over the HTTP
protocol. The mapping involves UTF-8 encoding of non-ASCII
characters, %-encoding of octets not allowed in URIs, and
Punycode-encoding of domain names.</p>
- <p class="note">Some concrete syntaxes permit relative IRIs
- as a shorthand for absolute IRIs, and define how to resolve
- the relative IRIs against a base IRI.</p>
+ <p class="note">Some
+ <a title="concrete RDF syntax">concrete RDF syntaxes</a> permit
+ <dfn title="relative IRI">relative IRIs</dfn> as a convenient shorthand
+ that allows authoring of documents independently from their final
+ publishing location. Relative IRIs must be
+ <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-5.2">resolved
+ against</a> a <dfn>base IRI</dfn> to make them absolute.
+ Therefore, the RDF graph serialized in such syntaxes is well-defined only
+ if a <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-5.1">base IRI
+ can be established</a> [[RFC3986]].</p>
<p class="note">Previous versions of RDF used the term
“<dfn>RDF URI Reference</dfn>” instead of “IRI” and allowed
@@ -466,13 +467,13 @@
‘<code>“</code>’ (double quote), and “<code> </code>” (space).
In IRIs, these characters must be percent-encoded as
described in <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-2.1">section 2.1</a>
- of [[URI]].</p>
+ of [[RFC3986]].</p>
<div class="note" id="note-iri-interop">
<p>Interoperability problems can be avoided by minting
only IRIs that are normalized according to
<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987#section-5">Section 5</a>
- of [[!IRI]]. Non-normalized forms that should be avoided
+ of [[!RFC3987]]. Non-normalized forms that should be avoided
include:</p>
<ul>
@@ -627,7 +628,7 @@
<p>In situations where stronger identification is needed, systems MAY
systematically transform some or all of the blank nodes in an RDF graph
- into IRIs [[!IRI]]. Systems wishing to do this SHOULD mint a new, globally
+ into IRIs [[!RFC3987]]. Systems wishing to do this SHOULD mint a new, globally
unique IRI (a <dfn>Skolem IRI</dfn>) for each blank node so transformed.</p>
<p>This transformation does not change the meaning of an RDF graph,
@@ -654,7 +655,7 @@
<p class="note">RFC 5785 [[WELL-KNOWN]] only specifies well-known URIs,
not IRIs. For the purpose of this document, a well-known IRI is any
- IRI that results in a well-known URI after IRI-to-URI mapping [[!IRI]].</p>
+ IRI that results in a well-known URI after IRI-to-URI mapping [[!RFC3987]].</p>
</section>
</section>
@@ -1143,7 +1144,7 @@
<dfn>fragment identifiers</dfn>, as resource identifiers.
The semantics of fragment identifiers are
<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.5">defined in
- RFC 3986</a> [[URI]]: They identify a secondary resource
+ RFC 3986</a> [[RFC3986]]: They identify a secondary resource
that is usually a part of, view of, defined in, or described in
the primary resource, and the precise semantics depend on the set
of representations that might result from a retrieval action
@@ -1190,9 +1191,6 @@
<section id="section-Acknowledgments" class="informative">
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
- <p class="issue">This section <em>may</em> not yet acknowledge
- <em>all</em> contributions to the RDF 1.1 version.</p>
-
<p>The RDF 1.1 editors acknowledge valuable contributions from
Thomas Baker, Dan Brickley, Gavin Carothers, Jeremy Carroll,
John Cowan, Martin J. Dürst, Alex Hall, Steve Harris, Pat Hayes,
@@ -1229,6 +1227,8 @@
<em>RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax</em>.</p>
<ul>
+ <li>2012-11-06: Modify the <a title="relative IRI">Note on relative IRIs</a> to stress their usefulness and to clarify the role of RFC 3986 in the resolution process</li>
+ <li>2012-11-06: Informatively <a href="#referents">explain</a> that IRIs in this spec are treated only as nodes in a graph data model, and no interaction model is implied</li>
<li>2012-08-09: Clarify that all datatypes are optional, but RDF-conformant specifications MAY require specific <a title="datatype map">datatype maps</a></li>
</ul>
</section>