W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > July 2005

Re: SPARQL: BASE IRI resolution

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 20:48:49 -0500
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1121996929.7049.247.camel@localhost>

>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20050721/ does not
> seem to define how the BASE IRI and a relative IRI are combined to
> a IRI.

In section 2.1 it says...

  The terms delimited by "<>" are IRI references [19]. They stand for IRIs,
  either directly, or relative to a base IRI. "

Then in [19], i.e. RFC 3987, we find:

6.5.  Relative IRI References

   Processing of relative IRI references against a base is handled
   straightforwardly; the algorithms of [RFC3986] can be applied
   directly, treating the characters additionally allowed in IRI
   references in the same way that unreserved characters are in URI
   references.


I see that rfc3986 says

   Normalization of the base URI, as described in Sections 6.2.2 and
   6.2.3, is optional.

so yes, we need to say what to do with non-canonical base URIs.
A test case seems in order... perhaps using the example there...

 eXAMPLE://a/./b/../b/%63/%7bfoo%7d

> Please change the draft such that this is well-defined. Note
> that the resolution algorithm in RFC 3986 is probably not suited
> for this purpose since there are optional normalization steps that
> would make this feature useless.

Hmm... I don't think I understand what you mean.

Please elaborate on which optional normailzation
steps would make this feature useless, and how.

> Depending on the algorithm, BASE
> might not be a good name for the feature.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 22 July 2005 01:48:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:49 GMT