W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > June 2001

Action from 2001-06-15

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 16:22:37 +0100 (BST)
To: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.31.0106181604150.27545-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
I've jotted down an action to write a proposed "fix" to para. 204 of
RDFMS
	http://ioctl.org/rdf/ms/rdfms#204
which currently reads:

[[[
(P204) URI-References are resolved to resource identifiers by first
resolving the URI-reference to absolute form as specified by [URI] using
the base URI of the document in which the RDF statements appear. If a
fragment identifier is included in the URI-reference then the resource
identifier refers only to a subcomponent of the containing
resource; this subcomponent is identifed by the corresponding anchor id
internal to that containing resource and the extent of the subcomponent
is defined by the fragment identifier in conjunction with the content
type of the containing resource, otherwise the resource identifier
refers to the entire item specified by the URI.
]]]
[URI] is	http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2396.txt

There's already been some talk about fragment IDs, but I think it was
the first sentence that we decided needed expanding in scope. Something
simple such as this:

"...using the base URI of the document in which the RDF statements
appear.

In the case of RDF which is embedded within other XML, the base URI of
the embedded RDF shall be taken as the base URI of an element appearing
at the same position in the containing document. That is, the effect
of any mechanism that the containing document might use to specify a
base URI* is 'inherited' by the contained RDF.

In the case of serialised RDF which does not naturally have a base URI
(for instance, RDF transmitted as part of an HTTP request), the meaning of
relative URIs is undefined, except where the transport protocol
specifies a mechanism for supplying a base URI, in which case that base
URI is used if supplied.

If a fragment identifier..."

It might need more wordsmithing, but that (I think) sums up the
discussion of 2001-06-15. If this meets with approval it ought to go on
the errata - however, I'm off for the remainder fo the week so
I'd appreciate it if someone else could pick this up from here.

Cheers,

jan

* such as that spec I promised not to mention (xml base)

-- 
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287163 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk
"Sufficiently large"="infinite" for sufficiently large values of "sufficiently"
Received on Monday, 18 June 2001 11:23:47 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:11 EDT