- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:20:45 -0500
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 02:46 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > >Thank you for your comment. Please see if > >[[ > >SPARQL provides an abbreviation mechanism for IRIs. Prefixes can be > >defined and a QName-like syntax [NAMESPACE] provides shorter > >forms. Prefixes may be used anywhere after they are declared; > >redefining a prefix causes the new definition to be used from that > >point in the query syntax. The base IRI for the resolution of relative > >IRIs may be explicitly declared with the BASE keyword. This > >specification does not define the value of the base IRI for SPARQL > >queries with no BASE directive. > > > >QNames are transformed into IRIs by appending the local name to the > >namespace name. Relative IRIs are combined with base IRIs as per > >Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax [RFC3986] using only > >the basic algorithm in Section 5.2 . Neither Syntax-Based > >Normalization nor Scheme-Based Normalization (described in sections > >6.2.2 and 6.2.3 of RFC3986) is performed. Characters additionally > >allowed in IRI references are treated in the same way that unreserved > >characters are treated in URI references, per section 6.5 of > >Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs) [RFC3987]. > >]] > >addresses your comment. > > I am not comfortable with the "abbreviation mechanism", see e.g. > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2004Jan/0009.html for why. There I see Fielding answering some questions about URI references. I don't see anything that should make one uncomfortable. Please elaborate or be more specific? > I am not sure whether it's good idea to name the BASE mechanism a > "directive"; is there no better term? From the grammar it seems > it should be "declaration". > > I am not sure what the remark about the lack of BASE is about; does > it mean that SPARQL implementations may ignore (parts of) section > 5.1 of RFC 3986? No; it just re-states 5.1.4 "If none of the conditions described above apply, then the base URI is defined by the context of the application." > It seems use of relative resource identifiers for BASE is not > allowed, but > > [3] BaseDecl ::= 'BASE' Q_IRI_REF > > the grammar does not reflect this. What does this mean exactly? Ah.. good question. I'm not sure. We'll have to look into that. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 7 September 2005 01:20:55 UTC