- From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:24:07 +0100
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Cc: nathan@webr3.org, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, public-rdfa-wg@w3.org, Martin McEvoy <martin@weborganics.co.uk>
Hi Shane, On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote: > I agree with Mark here. However, I also feel that we should encourage > people to NOT do this for the same reasons we encourage people to not use > relative URIs for prefix mappings. I think a relative URI for a default vocabulary is actually quite a legitimate scenario. Let's say that I want all 'undefined' terms to appear in a triple store for further processing. If I use an absolute URI then the undefined term 'foo' in document A will be the same as the undefined term 'foo' in document B. However, if I define my default vocabulary as: @vocab="/undefined-term/" then I'll get two different "foo" entries: http://example.org/document-A/undefined-term/foo http://example.org/document-B/undefined-term/foo Now I can process them completely independently of each other. > Also, and correct me if I am wrong, don't we need to fully resolve any > relative URIs in order to implant them in attributes within an XMLLiteral > serialization? I think the /spirit/ of the XML fragment canonicalisation algorithm is to try to make the fragment fit nicely with the structure of the document into which it is going to be placed. But I don't think it tries to do anything clever with the /content/ of the mark-up (i.e., the meaning as given to the mark-up by SVG, XHTML, XForms, etc.). I don't think we should go any further than the canonicalisation algorithm. Regards, Mark
Received on Tuesday, 26 October 2010 17:25:19 UTC