- From: McBride, Brian <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:09:42 -0000
- To: "Chimezie Ogbuji" <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>, "GRDDL Working Group" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
Hi Chime, > > > <rdf:Description rdf:about="."> > > > > Will be a reference to the resource identified by the base > URI of the > > source document. > > Yes, though the '.' is redundant with regards to URI base resolution. Not sure I understood that. A template outputing: <rdf:Description rdf:about=""> <rdfs:label>foo</rdfs:label> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="."> <rdfs:label>foo</rdfs:label> </rdf:Description> Creates a graph with two triples because the "" and the "." identify two different resources. Right? > > > > > So is that sufficient for now, I wonder, noting that with > XSLT 2 there > > is an accessor to get at the baseURI of a node > > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-datamodel/#dm-base-uri > > > > > > What this wouldn't let us do in XSLT <2 would be get the > baseURI and > > munge it in the style sheet, e.g. get the URI, extract the protocol > > part, and create a triple that said that resource is accessable by > > that protocol. > > Right, this is one of only a few usecases that come to mind > for the need to handle the baseURI explicitely. They seem > very peripheral to me. I'm certain there is best practice > against 'handling' URI's explicitely - I believe the > cwm-builtin property log:uri has a disclaimer to that effect: > > "This allows one to look at the actual string of the URI > which identifies this. (Cwm can get the URI of a resource or > get the resource from the > URI.) This is a level breaker, breaking the rule of not > looking inside a URI. " I take that as indicating your are leaning (acuteness of angle as yet undetermined) towards not having a parameter specifying the base uri. Brian
Received on Thursday, 30 November 2006 15:10:03 UTC