W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > February 2001

RE: What are allowable property URIs?

From: McBride, Brian <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:21:23 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F239633@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@Ninebynine.org>
Cc: "Dan Brickley (E-mail)" <danbri@w3.org>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Graham,

No, it wasn't on the issues list.  I'm
in the process of updating the list and have added it to my
working copy.  It will appear on the w3c site shortly.

Thank you.

Brian


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@Ninebynine.org]
> Sent: 14 February 2001 14:23
> To: Aaron Swartz
> Cc: Dan Brickley; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: What are allowable property URIs?
> 
> 
> At 10:11 PM 2/10/01 -0800, Aaron Swartz wrote:
> >     To re-serialize, you simply break the URI at the first 
> character not
> >     allowed in a Qname (here a /).
> >
> >xmlns:a="http://foo.com/"
> >http://foo.com/nsbar <- a:nsbar
> >
> >Sure, the re-serialized graph will not contain the same 
> namespace URIs as
> >the original, but to an RDF parser this will make no 
> difference. (This will
> >eventually cause a problem for XML signatures, since the 
> Canonical XML will
> >be different. Perhaps we need a Canonical RDF? Would it just 
> be a list of
> >triples?)
> 
> Reading this made me realize something obvious, but 
> previously overlooked 
> (by me).
> 
> Not every URI can be used as an RDF property identifier in the RDF 
> syntax.  e.g. http://acme.com/property/
> 
> The model doesn't have this restriction, that I can see, 
> which suggests a 
> mismatch between model and syntax.
> 
> Is this on the issues list?  Should it be?
> 
> #g
> 
> ------------
> Graham Klyne
> (GK@ACM.ORG)
> 
Received on Thursday, 15 February 2001 04:21:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:48 GMT