W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > January 2011

URI Comparisons: RFC 2616 vs. RDF

From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:51:54 +0100
Message-Id: <4F6C6A14-45C8-4595-8359-F4F995B340DA@ebusiness-unibw.org>
To: public-lod@w3.org
Dear all:

RFC 2616 [1, section 3.2.3] says that

"When comparing two URIs to decide if they match or not, a client   
SHOULD use a case-sensitive octet-by-octet comparison of the entire
    URIs, with these exceptions:

       - A port that is empty or not given is equivalent to the default
         port for that URI-reference;
       - Comparisons of host names MUST be case-insensitive;
       - Comparisons of scheme names MUST be case-insensitive;
       - An empty abs_path is equivalent to an abs_path of "/".

    Characters other than those in the "reserved" and "unsafe" sets (see
    RFC 2396 [42]) are equivalent to their ""%" HEX HEX" encoding.

    For example, the following three URIs are equivalent:

       http://abc.com:80/~smith/home.html
       http://ABC.com/%7Esmith/home.html
       http://ABC.com:/%7esmith/home.html
"

Does this also hold for identifying RDF resources

a) in theory and
b) in practice (e.g. in popular triplestores)?

I did not test it yet, but I assume that not all implementations would  
treat

    http://purl.org/NET/c4dm/event.owl#Event
    HTTP://purl.org/NET/c4dm/event.owl#Event
    http://PURL.org/NET/c4dm/event.owl#Event
    http://purl.org:80/NET/c4dm/event.owl#Event

as the same class.

Any facts or opinions?

Best

Martin


[1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt

--------------------------------------------------------
martin hepp
e-business & web science research group
universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen

e-mail:  hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
          http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
skype:   mfhepp
twitter: mfhepp
Received on Monday, 17 January 2011 15:52:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:31 UTC