W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: URI coordination: blank URIs

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:40:51 -0500
Message-Id: <p05111b0cbac5d40d775f@[]>
To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>This is for information, no action requested.
>First, the minutes of the URI BOF held at the last IETF meeting are at [1]:
>Also, there is an issue list [2]
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2003Mar/0043.html
>[2] http://www.apache.org/~fielding/uri/rev-2002/issues.html
>And so to the blank URI question:
>I was reminded obliquely (by a comment about splitting URIs into 
>QNames in Jena) that the folks looking at RFC2396bis (URI spec 
>revision) have raised the issue of how to treat fragments attached 
>to blank URIs.

What is a blank URI?? Does it have anything to do with a blank node 
in RDF? (I hope not.)


>Currently, according to RFC2396, #frag is always relative to the 
>current document rather than the current URI resolution base.  This 
>caused us some debate about how to deal with xml:base in RDF.
>The current thinking in the URI group is to replace this with a 
>discussion of (non-) retrieval when a bare fragment is used:
>One cannot use the fragment to indicate relative to a base document,
>other than to the current document.  Some want to allow XML parsers
>for RDF to use base URI+fragment together.  The proposal would replace
>discussion in current document with extended discussion of retrieval
>when base is same as current document. There was support for this the
>-- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2003Mar/0043.html
>Note that this issue is a request to change the "current document"
>algorithm.  This can be accomplished by changing the spec to remove
>the bit about current document and instead replace the empty URI with
>the base URI, later stating that a retrieval action must not take place
>if the new URI differs from the base URI only by its fragment.
>-- http://www.apache.org/~fielding/uri/rev-2002/issues.html#017-rdf-fragment
>(Actually, I think there's a typo there in the issue list:  the 
>minutes reflect my understanding.)
>Graham Klyne
>PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E

IHMC					(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Friday, 18 April 2003 12:40:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:05 UTC