W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > October 2002

FW: Guide: review - boring (this review not the guide)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:40:49 +0100
To: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ENEKKODIOPDFKPGAOLNIMEAFCAAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>



>
>  rdf:ID="VIN:FOO"     (IDsymbol is an XML Name.)
>
> Where is this ruled out?  Or is it permitted and if so what does it
> mean?

This one is probably not yet in any published doc really. M&S is at best
ambiguous, it really ought to refer to XML Namespaces NC Colon but doesn't.

See

http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-rdf-id/error003.rdf

(this is not yet approved).

>
>  rdf:about="FOO"      (rel_path)
>  rdf:about="FOO#BOO"  (rel_path + fragment)
>  rdf:about="VIN:FOO"  (absolute URI with opaque part)
>
>

The newer specs are clear that:

1) The RDF graph requires absolute URIs
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Graph-URIref
2) That relative URIs in RDF/XML are converted to absolute URIs using
RFC2396, and xml:base, if any.
3) That rdf:about takes a URI not a qname.
Thus all three examples are legal, but VIN:FOO is a distinct uri from an
unregistered scheme VIN, rather than the uri which is formed from the qname
VIN:FOO.

Dan is right to point out that the RDF validator does encapsulate most of my
knowledge. Things missing at the moment are:
 - the illegality of " 1 " when an integer is required (depends on RDF
datatyping that is not finished)
 - rdf:parseType="Collection" support (present in the Jena CVS but not in
any released version - next release this week or next, probably a little
time before it gets into the validator).

But it does report an error on the obscure namespace erratum!

Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2002 07:37:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:53 GMT