W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org > April to June 2002

RE: Resolving references against base URIs

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 11:56:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192AB0@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Paul Grosso'" <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org, uri@w3.org, "'Jeremy Carroll'" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Paul,

It seems you're having trouble with Jeremy's attachment. Below I've
extracted a text copy that may help you understand my reponse.

> I'm not sure what you are saying here--can you expand?  I haven't been
able
> to see Jeremy's HTML file, and I'm not sure I understand what his answers
> are in the cases he lists below, but I don't see how the in-scope base URI
> and the document's retrieval URI could affect same document 
> references.

Part of the context of Jeremy's question is consideration of xml:base and
the answers
he offers, the heading of the first column and the comment in his
rationale...

> >> e,f,i,j,k,l
> >> Base does apply to same document references in RDF/XML

...all suggest that RDF/XML proposes to 'apply' an in-scope xml:base in
resolving same document references.

Regards

Stuart
--

    Base                          Relative     Resolved
Number 
EASY:  
a "http://example.org/dir/file"  "../relfile"  http://example.org/relfile
007  

b "http://example.org/dir/file"  "/absfile"    http://example.org/absfile
009
  
c "http://example.org/dir/file"  "//another.example.org/absfile"
 
http://another.example.org/absfile  010  

GETTING HARDER: 
d "http://example.org/dir/file" "../../../relfile"
 
http://example.org/../../absfile  012  

e "http://example.org/dir/file" ""             http://example.org/dir/file
008  

f "http://example.org/dir/file" "#frag"
http://example.org/dir/file#frag  001  


MASTER CLASS: 
g "http://example.org"          "relfile"      http://example.org/relfile
011  

h "http://example.org/dir/file#frag" "relfile"
http://example.org/dir/relfile  013  

i "http://example.org/dir/file#frag" "#foo"  http://example.org/dir/file#foo
013  

j "http://example.org/dir/file#frag"  ""  http://example.org/dir/file  013  

k "mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com"  "#foo"  mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com#foo
015  

l "mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com"  ""  mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com 016  

No Consensus: 
m "mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com"  "relfile"  mailto:relfile 001  
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Grosso [mailto:pgrosso@arbortext.com]
> Sent: 11 April 2002 16:11
> To: Williams, Stuart; 'Jeremy Carroll'
> Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org; uri@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Resolving references against base URIs
> 
> 
> At 15:45 2002 04 11 +0100, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> >Hi Jeremy,
> >
> >Hmmm....
> >
> >> e,f,i,j,k,l
> >> Base does apply to same document references in RDF/XML
> >
> >I think that you're changing the semantics of URI references 
> as defined in
> >RFC2396, particularly section 4.2, same document references. 
> I think your
> >answers would be correct only for those cases where the 
> in-scope base URI
> >and the URI from which the document were retrieved are the same.
> 
> Stuart,
> 
> I'm not sure what you are saying here--can you expand?  I haven't been
able
> to see Jeremy's HTML file, and I'm not sure I understand what his answers
> are in the cases he lists below, but I don't see how the in-scope base URI
> and the document's retrieval URI could affect same document 
> references.
> 
> paul
> 
> >Regards
> >
> >Stuart
> >--
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> >> Sent: 10 April 2002 18:43
> >> To: uri@w3.org
> >> Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
> >> Subject: Resolving references against base URIs
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> This is a comment about RFC 2396 that I have been actioned to 
> >> send on behalf
> >> of the W3C RDF Core Working Group [1]
> >> 
> >> The key issue concern resolving same document references 
> >> and/or resolving
> >> against non-hierarchical URIs.
> >> 
> >> These have been causing us difficulty in using xml:base
> >> 
> >> As one of our deliverables we produce test cases [2].
> >> 
> >> A summary table of our URI resolution problems is as follows;
> >> the answers we have agreed are in the attached HTML file.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> EASY:
> >> a "http://example.org/dir/file"      "../relfile"
> >> b "http://example.org/dir/file"      "/absfile"
> >> c "http://example.org/dir/file"      
> "//another.example.org/absfile"
> >> 
> >> GETTING HARDER:
> >> d "http://example.org/dir/file"      "../../../relfile"
> >> e "http://example.org/dir/file"      ""
> >> f "http://example.org/dir/file"      "#frag"
> >> 
> >> MASTER CLASS:
> >> g "http://example.org"               "relfile"
> >> 
> >> h "http://example.org/dir/file#frag" "relfile"
> >> i "http://example.org/dir/file#frag" "#foo"
> >> j "http://example.org/dir/file#frag" ""
> >> 
> >> k "mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com"     "#foo"
> >> l "mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com"     ""
> >> m "mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com"     "relfile"
> >> 
> >> 
> >> We have reached consensus on and approved all these tests 
> >> except for the
> >> last which some of us consider an error and others resolve as 
> >> indicated in
> >> the html file.
> >> 
> >> The rationales for our views are approximately as follows:
> >> 
> >> d "http://example.org/dir/file"      "../../../relfile"
> >> 
> >> [[[RFC2396
> >>    In practice, some implementations strip leading 
> relative symbolic
> >>    elements (".", "..") after applying a relative URI 
> >> calculation, based
> >>    on the theory that compensating for obvious author 
> errors is better
> >>    than allowing the request to fail.
> >> ]]]
> >> Not permitted in RDF/XML.
> >> 
> >> e,f,i,j,k,l
> >> Base does apply to same document references in RDF/XML
> >> 
> >> g
> >> Failure to insert / is a bug with RFC 2396
> >> 
> >> h,i,j
> >> Strip frag id from base uri ref before resolving.
> >> Notice j is particularly surprising.
> >> 
> >> k,l
> >> Same document reference resolution even works for 
> >> non-hierarchical uris.
> >> 
> >> m
> >> - no consensus
> >> 
> >> 
> >> The test suite is structured as follows:
> >> 
> >> The positive tests on the test cases web site show a usage of 
> >> xml:base in
> >> RDF/XML and the resolution of that usage in terms of the RDF 
> >> graph produced
> >> (with absolute URI ref labels). Each test consists of two 
> >> files, an RDF/XML
> >> document and an n-triple file (substitute .rdf with .nt in 
> >> the URL), being a
> >> list of the edges of the graph.
> >> 
> >> The negative test case shows possibly illegal usage of 
> >> xml:base in RDF/XML.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Our intent is that these tests will be part of a normative 
> >> revision of the
> >> RDF recommendation.
> >> 
> >> Jeremy Carroll
> >> HP Rep W3C RDF Core WG
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> [1]
> >> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0008.html
> >> 2002-03-22#4:  jeremy Send mailto:uri@w3.org with appropriate tests
> >> 
> >> [2]
> >> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/xmlbase/
> >> 
> >> 
> 
Received on Monday, 15 April 2002 06:57:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:39:43 GMT