W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2002

docsync: RDF URI Reference

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 19:31:36 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021104191629.03027d10@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

What do we call the things in an RDF graph that identify resources?

These things are absolute URI's with optional fragment identifiers.  They 
are not URI references, because URI references can contain a relative 
URI.  The concepts doc has been using, in part, the term RDF URI References 
for these things.  Is that a term everyone feels comfortable with using?

When talking about the RDF/XML syntax, whether in the syntax doc or the 
primer, or anywhere else, we must be careful how we describe the value of 
rdf:about and rdf:resource attributes.  The issue here is that we do not 
process them the same way as the URI spec says.  We do not treat a fragment 
identifier as a same document reference.  It is important that we are clear 
that we are not claiming to conform to rfc 2396.  We process RDF URI 
references and URI references with a relative URI the same way as rfc 2396 
and XML base specifies.  We process fragment identifiers differently.

[Hmmm, not sure about the rdf:about="" case].

The fragment identifier on its own is not a same document reference, as rfc 
2396 would have it, because if it were, it would be more difficult to 
justify using an inscope xml base when translating it to an RDF URI 
Reference.  So its a fragment identifier and we define our own algorithm 
for translating those to an RDF URI Reference.

Also need to be similarly careful describing rdf:ID and rdf:bagID.

Does that make sense to folks?

Brian
Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 14:29:11 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:53:57 EDT