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

Re: URI Comparisons: RFC 2616 vs. RDF

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 15:00:04 -0500
Message-ID: <4D3B3744.50201@openlinksw.com>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
CC: Peter DeVries <pete.devries@gmail.com>, public-lod@w3.org
On 1/22/11 8:27 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 21:43:08 -0600
> Peter DeVries<pete.devries@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> I have URI's where case is important only at the terminal identifier.
>> (HTML URI's in this example)
>> http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p.html
>> should be different than
>> http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6N7p.html
>> Am I correct in thinking that this is OK?
> Yes, HTTP URIs are case-sensitive apart from the scheme (http), host
> (lod.taxonconcept.org) and percent-escaped characters (e.g. %7e vs %7E).
>
> Any URI canonicalisation tool that treats the above two URIs as the
> same is plain broken.
>

Amen!

A URI is an Identifier. The fact that it can be used to Identify a Data 
Source  i.e.,  an Address via HTTP scheme that provides actual access to 
Data doesn't negate the fact that it's fundamentally an Identifier.  The 
fact that the Web has manifested back to front (URLs usage before URI 
groking) doesn't mean everything has to follow this warped pattern.

The Web is part of a technology continuum. Computing did exist before 
the WWW became ubiquitous.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Saturday, 22 January 2011 20:00:44 UTC

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