Re: mlw-lt-track-ISSUE-29 (Maxime): Please comment the possible solutions for HTML+ITS2.0 to HTML (and | embedded by | embedding) RDF

Hi Jirka,

On 06/25/2012 07:20 PM, Jirka Kosek wrote:
> On 25.6.2012 18:24, Sebastian Hellmann wrote:
>
>> The part after the crosshatch "#" isn't part of the URI, anyhow.
> I don't think so.
Thanks, for pointing that out. I really was mistaken, as I had looked at 
the old RFC http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2396#section-4 where it said:

However, "the URI" that results from such a
    reference includes only the absolute URI after the fragment
    identifier (if any) is removed and after any relative URI is resolved
    to its absolute form.

In the new RFC 3986 this distinction is not made any more. I have heard 
other people say it, so the misconception might be quite popular.

>> Should
>> we forward the syntax question to the uri@w3.org list? "[" and "]" do
>> not seem to be ok.
> We can use them, but they will have to be escaped by using %HH notation.
> I don't see this as a problem as these will be generated automatically
> anyway.
I am not a big fan of percent encoding, but in this case I agree. It 
might be the most efficient to decode the part and pass it to an xpath 
implementation .
>
>>   - should we only select one element or allow to select all of a certain
>> type e.g. html[1]/body[1]/div ?
> I don't think that we should mimicks ITS rules in RDF this way. We
> should select only one node in one triplet.
ok, excellent, then these are resolved.
All the best,
Sebastian


-- 
Dipl. Inf. Sebastian Hellmann
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig
Projects: http://nlp2rdf.org , http://dbpedia.org
Homepage: http://bis.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/SebastianHellmann
Research Group: http://aksw.org

Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 06:26:30 UTC