- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:56:52 +0100
- To: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
We started to discuss this on the call today but shelved it while I found the text and never got back to it ... My original proposed text [*] relating to issue 30 actually had two paragraphs. We've covered the first one. The second one mentioned the resolution of relative IRIs into absolute IRIs. Is there any reason to not also include this second paragraph? Checking the SPARQL spec, which is where the substance of this text came from, I see one more sentence would be useful, so the revised proposed second paragraph is: [[[ In the concrete XML and human readable syntax relative IRI references are permitted in which case they will be resolved relative to a base IRI 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) are 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]. ]]] This does two things. Points out that you can use relative references in source documents (they become absolute IRIs in the abstract syntax). Spells out that there is no normalization step, which implies that equivalence is the simple string comparison that we've discussed in email. If we would like to capture that sentiment but wanted text that separated those two issues more clearly I could draft that but the above has the advantage that if it's good enough for SPARQL then it's good enough for us. Dave [*] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Mar/0133.html -- Hewlett-Packard Limited Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:57:15 UTC