Re: Editorial changes to clarify usage of URIs / Absolute URIs and @profile

On Feb 8, 2011, at 12:23 , Nathan wrote:

> Ivan Herman wrote:
>> On Feb 8, 2011, at 12:12 , Nathan wrote:
>>> Hi Shane,
>>> 
>>> Following on from two discussions on the list about the use of @profiles, and confusion over the terminology "TERMorCURIEorAbsURI" in the current RDFa-Core draft, I'd propose the following clarifications to the spec.
>>> 
>>> define:
>>> 
>>> URI
>>>   URI  = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ]
>>>   A URI conforming to the Generic URI Syntax, as per section 3 of
>>>   RFC3986 [1]
>>> 
>>> AbsoluteURI
>>>   absolute-URI  = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ]
>>>   An absolute-URI as per section 4.3 of RFC 3986 [2]
>> Wait, I am not sure I understand this.
>> I do _not_ think that it is worthwhile for us to restrict a @profile value to be an AbsoluteURI in this sense. What you do is to remove the optional fragment, and I think that this is unnecessary on the specification level. We can add some warning on the effect of cache, but that is it.
>> What I want to be sure of is that I could not do something like
>> @profile="#me"
>> ie, a 'pure' fragment ID, ie, a relative URI. (The same, probably, for @vocab.) But the URI specification you quote in the document seems to exclude that anyway. Ie, the spec is probably fine as far as I am concerned, it is just that some explanation might be worth somewhere that we do not use relative URI-s.
> 
> what about @profile="../foo" (and likewise vocab) ?
> 

Hm. Yeah:-)

Ivan



----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf