- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 15:48:04 +0000
- To: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Cc: public-rdf-tests@w3.org, RDF Comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On 25/10/15 12:01, Ruben Verborgh wrote: > Dear Andy, > >> The tests make an additional assumption that absolute URIs are not normalized. This is not covered by the Turtle spec one way or another (nor should it be). Both normalizing and not normalizing are possible. > > I disagree here—there Turtle spec should cover this. "should" or "does"? Are you arguing for a change to Turtle? If it's a change, then -1 to these tests. One way is to avoid the area that is a problem for 3986 and change the tests to use the "/../" from the "/.." form. As you yourself noted, normalization is assumed by RFC3986/5.2. Or follow RFC 3987 and don't have absolute URIs with them in. > Otherwise, two identical Turtle documents can result in different sets of triples. ... in the one case where the base URI ends in "/.." which isn't good practice; RFC 3987/5.3.2.4 even says it is not intended usage. > I think it's clear that absolute URIS should not be touched, > and that the spec also says this. The spec being Turtle? Please quote text where it says that about @base. Andy (RDF/XML is different on relative URIs) > > Best, > > Ruben >
Received on Sunday, 25 October 2015 15:48:37 UTC