Re: problem with N-Triples

On Fri, 30 May 2003 10:07:13 -0400 (EDT)
"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:

> 
> The situation with respect to absoluteURI is very unclear.
> 
> Is '::' a valid absoluteURI.  If not, why not?
> 
> It appears that absoluteURI should be one of the productions from RFC 2396,
> but which one?  It can't be absoluteURI, because that does not allow
> fragments!

I have already decided here to change the reference to point to the
definition of RDF URI Reference as given in the RDF Concepts WD:
  http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#dfn-URI-reference
and say less here.  The N-Triples doc will then just describe how to
encode such things into N-Triples.

However, from what I recall of the definition of URIs, an absolute
URI reference must start with a legal URI 'scheme', therefore there
must be at least one legal 'scheme' character before the first ':';
So '::' is not a legal absolute URI (or absolute URI reference).  The
definitive answer is of course in the URI RFC and I think the BNF
section defines that answer.

Dave