- From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:08:53 -0000
- To: "'Bijan Parsia'" <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Cc: "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>, "'W3C OWL Working Group'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hello, [snip] > I was going to suggest this. Or you could use safe curies and makes > sure [] aren't used elsewhere. > I was thinking about using safe CURIEs as well; however, irelative-ref can contain [], so using safe CURIEs just moves the problem elsewhere. Consequently, safe CURIEs are not really that safe after all. I believe therefore that either 1 or 2 from your list below is the way to go. I actually also prefer 1. Regards, Boris > > In the context of OWL, however, I don't believe this to be a > > problem: (1) I do > > not expect that ontologies will contain many CURIEs that will > > contain such > > characters; furthermore, (2) such things can be processed by the > > tools, so no > > user needs to see the %28 and %29 escape sequences. > > So, basically, the options are: > 1) Forbid ambiguous characters in CURIEs, URIs terminating with those > characters have to be represented with full URIs > 2) Require percent encoding of problem characters > 3) Require safe CURIEs (per the spec) > > The problem with 2 is that URI comparison become a bit trickier. What > do we say now? We'd have to make sure that there was a URI > normalization phase (or only a CURIE normalization?) > > The problem with 3 is that it adds a bit of logic to the CURIE parse > phase (i.e., check for leading [, make sure theirs a trailing ]) > > The problem with one is a burden on serializers. > > I prefer 1. I think it's the smallest change from the status quo. > > Cheers, > Bijan.
Received on Sunday, 22 March 2009 13:10:07 UTC