RE: Issue-base-param: do we need the parameter?

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