[sc34wg3] CTM draft dtd. 2007-09-09 - Proposal for IRIs

Lars Marius Garshol larsga at garshol.priv.no
Sat Oct 20 08:23:59 EDT 2007

* Lars Heuer
> Well, angle brackets (< >) were removed for TMQL in Leipzig, so my
> proposal for CTM has not a bright future, I guess. ;)

Not unless you can be bothered to argue for why you think it's the  
right thing. You weren't in Leipzig, but you could still do it here.

> IMO it is the wrong decision. If the committee would have decided that
> IRIs must always be enclosed in angle brackets, I could understand it
> (while I proposed to allow both syntaxes), but the removal is wrong
> (reasons are listed in the proposal).

What proposal?

> <sarcasm>
> In Montréal the advanced QNames of CTM were removed in reference to
> SPARQL not supporting them and for other reasons.
> Maybe the committee should take another look how SPARQL
> handles IRIs.
> </sarcasm>

Actually, they were removed because we didn't like them. As far as  
I'm concerned SPARQL had little to do with it. But, anyway, how  
*does* SPARQL handle IRIs?

Note that things enclosed in <> do not embed very well in XML.

--Lars M.

More information about the sc34wg3 mailing list