Closed gkellogg closed 4 years ago
s/Update use if _IRI_ to obviate
/Update use of _IRI_ to obviate
/
@gkellogg there's a couple more "absolute IRI" mentions in the "base IRI" definition, but otherwise this looks good.
I stick to my point that some readers might wrongly interpret
<a>IRI</a>
as meaning "either absolute or relative IRI"... But I have no really good alternative to propose...
But, that's how the base RFC defines it, so trying to invent our own terminology can be more confusing, which I think was partly @lo48576's point. In context, it should be clear what the meaning is, and the term definitions (both in the spec, and in their original locations) should provide all the clarity that is necessary.
Clearly, RFC3987 was sufficiently confusing, that the 1.0 spec got it wrong, but I don't think it's up to us to change that.
Clearly, RFC3987 was sufficiently confusing, that the 1.0 spec got it wrong, but I don't think it's up to us to change that.
Actually, the rest of the RDF 1.1 WG also got it wrong: https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#note-iris .
@iherman should we make an erratum? (this is not too bad actually, there are only 6 occurences of "relative" and 4 occurences of "absolute".
@iherman should we make an erratum? (this is not too bad actually, there are only 6 occurences of "relative" and 4 occurences of "absolute".
Yes...
... use IRI reference where appropriate, and replace relative IRI with relative IRI reference.
For #288.
Preview | Diff