W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Indicating Skolem Nodes (was Re: AW: {Disarmed} Re: blank nodes (once again))

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:10:34 +0100
Message-ID: <4D9347EA.2040308@webr3.org>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, semantic-web@w3.org
Jonathan Rees wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
>> Oh well, that is a relief. But now, purely as a matter of terminology, how do we describe the distinction (between he URis which require a 303 and those that don't, the ones that used to be URIrefs) using the terminology of 3986? They are all URIs, but some need a 303 while others escape this silliness. And those are...what?
>>
>> Pat
> 
> We have the folksy "slash URI", and lately I've been saying "hashless
> URI", but I just looked in http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt  and
> found the following, which might do the trick:
> 
> 4.3.  Absolute URI
> 
>    Some protocol elements allow only the absolute form of a URI without
>    a fragment identifier.  For example, defining a base URI for later
>    use by relative references calls for an absolute-URI syntax rule that
>    does not allow a fragment.
> 
>       absolute-URI  = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ]

Yes, exactly, or absolute-IRI if using 3987.

The term we don't have, is a term for IRI/URI with a hash, one for:

   scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] "#" fragment

Which would give us:

   URI           = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ]
   absolute-URI  = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ]
   hash-URI      = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] "#" fragment

(and likewise for IRI)

Best,

Nathan
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2011 15:11:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:26 UTC