W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > August 2015

Re: RDF's relative IRI resolution is ambiguous

From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 20:58:07 +0200
Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDF Comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-Id: <17AE21F0-94E2-4E12-9A3D-4C39E51A134E@ugent.be>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
>>> If we interpret "only the basic algorithm" as "the entire algorithm in RFC3986 5.2", then
>>>  @base <http://example.org/xxx/yyy/zzz/../../../>.
>>>  <> <a> <../../../a>.
>>> would result in
>>>  <http://example.org/xxx/yyy/zzz/../../../> <http://example.org/a> <http://example.org/a>.
>> 
>> Correct.
> 
> That depends on if <> is interpreted as a relative URI. In my case it is, as all URIs are joined to @base (defaulting to document location), so URI("http://example.org/xxx/yyy/zzz/../../../).join() becomes URI("http://example.org/) (in Ruby-land anyway). RDF.rb implementation yields the following triple:

Actually, I see no explicit support in the Turtle spec for either of the interpretations.
If we follow the RFC algorithms in 5.2 with the empty string as relative IRI,
Gregg would actually be right. So which one should it be?
Is "<>" an alias for "the base IRI" or is "<>" a regular relative IRI?
(I find the latter interpretation problematic, because then <>
 cannot be used as a universal symbol for "current resource IRI" anymore.)

Best,

Ruben
Received on Thursday, 27 August 2015 18:58:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:49 UTC