W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > November 2009

RE: issues with the Base directive

From: Boley, Harold <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:20:53 -0500
Message-ID: <E4D07AB09F5F044299333C8D0FEB45E907EF11A9@nrccenexb1.nrc.ca>
To: "RIF WG Public list" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Cc: <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
The RDF/XML Syntax Specification says
(http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#section-Syntax-ID-xml-base):

"The base URI applies to all RDF/XML attributes that deal with
RDF URI references which are rdf:about, rdf:resource, rdf:ID and
rdf:datatype."

Similarly, BLD now explains
(http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#XML_for_the_Rule_Language):

A Base directive in the presentation syntax becomes an xml:base
attribute [XML-Base] in the XML Document tag. The base IRI specified as
the value of that attribute applies to content of the RIF/XML element
that deals with rif:iri constants, namely to relative-IRI content of the
<Const type="&rif;iri"> element.

Harold and Michael


-----Original Message-----
From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Michael Kifer
Sent: November 28, 2009 2:37 AM
To: RIF WG Public list
Subject: issues with the Base directive

We realized that none of our documents has even a single example of the
Base
directive in the presentation syntax. So, we modified the BLD examples
to show
how Base should be used. See, for example Ex 1 and others in
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD

However, when it came to Example 8, a question arose as to how to
reflect Base
in XML. In the WG, Base was requested as a counterpart of the XML
directive
xml:base. But the xml:base document http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/
does not say which strings are to be expanded using the xml:base
directive.
It says that "each XML vocabulary is to decide for itself."
The xml:base document is rather vague on that point and the question is,
where should such a decision be recorded?

We thought that adding some English text in the XML appendix saying that
relative IRIs in <Const type="&rif;iri">....</Const> are expanded using
xml:base is a reasonable solution.
Sandro seems to also think it is reasonable.

Anybody has another idea?

Btw, another good question is whether relative URIs can be used in the
Prefix/Import directives (and be expandable using Base).
Thoughts?
Received on Sunday, 29 November 2009 03:21:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 29 November 2009 03:21:37 GMT