- From: Daniel Elenius <daele@ida.liu.se>
- Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:26:38 -0700
- To: public-sws-ig@w3.org, David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>
So, can we conclude that hash is slightly wrong but harmless? ;) /Daniel Bijan Parsia wrote: > > On Oct 14, 2004, at 5:45 PM, David Martin wrote: > >> I agree with you, Daniel. It seems intuitive to me that the "URI of >> the document containing the ontology" would not include the "#". > > > It doesn't, even if the base URI has a "#". > > The normative place for this is: > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/#section- > baseURIs > > """An empty same document reference "" resolves against the URI part > of the base URI; any fragment part is ignored. See Uniform Resource > Identifiers (URI) [URIS] section 4.2""" > > This is the short version of my prior post. :) > > Cheers, > Bijan Parsia. > >
Received on Friday, 15 October 2004 02:26:41 UTC