RE: Jena/SPARQL.org bug when processing URNs

This is described in RFC 3986
http://gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rfc/rfc3986.html#comparison-string
[[
Protocols and data formats often limit some URI comparisons to simple string comparison, based on the theory that people and implementations will, in their own best interest, be consistent in providing URI references, or at least consistent enough to negate any efficiency that might be obtained from further normalization.
]]
And just above
[[
false negatives cannot be eliminated. In practice, their probability can be reduced, but this reduction requires more processing and is not cost-effective for all applications.
]]

Jeremy


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Toby A Inkster
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 2:34 PM
> To: RDFa; andy.seaborne@hp.com; Manu Sporny
> Subject: Re: Jena/SPARQL.org bug when processing URNs
> 
> 
> Manu Sporny wrote:
> 
> > Hmm... that's a bit strange. Anybody know the thought process behind
> > that decision? For example, that would mean that this:
> >
> > http://example.org/
> > and this
> > HTTP://example.org/
> >
> > while being canonically the same, would fail in any sort of RDF-based
> > comparison?
> 
> I imagine that it's to make things easier to implement. Especially
> given that the URIs used in RDF may well use URI schemes that had not
> even been envisaged when RDF was invented. Should all RDF processors
> need to know that tel:+441632790123 and tel:+44-1623-790123 are
> equivalent? Given the vast number of different URI schemes (see
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_scheme>) with new schemes being
> standardised all the time, it would be impractical for RDF
> implementations to be required to recognise equivalent URIs.
> 
> --
> Toby A Inkster
> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
> 
>

Received on Friday, 19 September 2008 02:31:48 UTC