- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 08:13:56 -0700
- To: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDF Comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On Aug 27, 2015, at 7:57 AM, Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be> wrote:
>
> I meant that, under the RDF model, these are all different graphs
>
> GRAPH [] { <http://example.org/xxx/yyy/zzz/../../../> <http://example.org/a> <http://example.org/a>. }
> GRAPH [] { <http://example.org/xxx/yyy/zzz/../../../> <http://example.org/xxx/yyy/zzz/../../../a> <http://example.org/xxx/yyy/zzz/a>. }
> GRAPH [] { <http://example.org/xxx/yyy/zzz/../../../> <http://example.org/xxx/yyy/zzz/../../../a> <http://example.org/xxx/yyy/zzz/a>. }
> GRAPH [] { <http://example.org/> <http://example.org/a> <http://example.org/a>. }
>
> Yet they all are the result of parsing the same Turtle file,
> under different interpretations of what "the basic algorithm in RFC3986" means.
FWIW, I don’t think these represent “different interpretations” of the spec text. I think it reveal bugs in the implementations that don’t follow section 5.2 of the RFC. We might wish the Turtle spec text was clearer, but when implementing I understood "the basic algorithm” to be a *description* of what I would find in 5.2, not a named algorithm contained somewhere within section 5.2.
.greg
Received on Thursday, 27 August 2015 15:14:24 UTC