- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:55:00 +0100
- To: "'Paul Grosso'" <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org, uri@w3.org, "'Jeremy Carroll'" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Paul,
It seems you're having trouble with Jeremy's attachment. Below I've
extracted a text copy that may help you understand my reponse.
> I'm not sure what you are saying here--can you expand? I haven't been
able
> to see Jeremy's HTML file, and I'm not sure I understand what his answers
> are in the cases he lists below, but I don't see how the in-scope base URI
> and the document's retrieval URI could affect same document
> references.
Part of the context of Jeremy's question is consideration of xml:base and
the answers
he offers, the heading of the first column and the comment in his
rationale...
> >> e,f,i,j,k,l
> >> Base does apply to same document references in RDF/XML
...all suggest that RDF/XML proposes to 'apply' an in-scope xml:base in
resolving same document references.
Regards
Stuart
--
Base Relative Resolved
Number
EASY:
a "http://example.org/dir/file" "../relfile" http://example.org/relfile
007
b "http://example.org/dir/file" "/absfile" http://example.org/absfile
009
c "http://example.org/dir/file" "//another.example.org/absfile"
http://another.example.org/absfile 010
GETTING HARDER:
d "http://example.org/dir/file" "../../../relfile"
http://example.org/../../absfile 012
e "http://example.org/dir/file" "" http://example.org/dir/file
008
f "http://example.org/dir/file" "#frag"
http://example.org/dir/file#frag 001
MASTER CLASS:
g "http://example.org" "relfile" http://example.org/relfile
011
h "http://example.org/dir/file#frag" "relfile"
http://example.org/dir/relfile 013
i "http://example.org/dir/file#frag" "#foo" http://example.org/dir/file#foo
013
j "http://example.org/dir/file#frag" "" http://example.org/dir/file 013
k "mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com" "#foo" mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com#foo
015
l "mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com" "" mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com 016
No Consensus:
m "mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com" "relfile" mailto:relfile 001
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Grosso [mailto:pgrosso@arbortext.com]
> Sent: 11 April 2002 16:11
> To: Williams, Stuart; 'Jeremy Carroll'
> Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org; uri@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Resolving references against base URIs
>
>
> At 15:45 2002 04 11 +0100, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> >Hi Jeremy,
> >
> >Hmmm....
> >
> >> e,f,i,j,k,l
> >> Base does apply to same document references in RDF/XML
> >
> >I think that you're changing the semantics of URI references
> as defined in
> >RFC2396, particularly section 4.2, same document references.
> I think your
> >answers would be correct only for those cases where the
> in-scope base URI
> >and the URI from which the document were retrieved are the same.
>
> Stuart,
>
> I'm not sure what you are saying here--can you expand? I haven't been
able
> to see Jeremy's HTML file, and I'm not sure I understand what his answers
> are in the cases he lists below, but I don't see how the in-scope base URI
> and the document's retrieval URI could affect same document
> references.
>
> paul
>
> >Regards
> >
> >Stuart
> >--
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> >> Sent: 10 April 2002 18:43
> >> To: uri@w3.org
> >> Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
> >> Subject: Resolving references against base URIs
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> This is a comment about RFC 2396 that I have been actioned to
> >> send on behalf
> >> of the W3C RDF Core Working Group [1]
> >>
> >> The key issue concern resolving same document references
> >> and/or resolving
> >> against non-hierarchical URIs.
> >>
> >> These have been causing us difficulty in using xml:base
> >>
> >> As one of our deliverables we produce test cases [2].
> >>
> >> A summary table of our URI resolution problems is as follows;
> >> the answers we have agreed are in the attached HTML file.
> >>
> >>
> >> EASY:
> >> a "http://example.org/dir/file" "../relfile"
> >> b "http://example.org/dir/file" "/absfile"
> >> c "http://example.org/dir/file"
> "//another.example.org/absfile"
> >>
> >> GETTING HARDER:
> >> d "http://example.org/dir/file" "../../../relfile"
> >> e "http://example.org/dir/file" ""
> >> f "http://example.org/dir/file" "#frag"
> >>
> >> MASTER CLASS:
> >> g "http://example.org" "relfile"
> >>
> >> h "http://example.org/dir/file#frag" "relfile"
> >> i "http://example.org/dir/file#frag" "#foo"
> >> j "http://example.org/dir/file#frag" ""
> >>
> >> k "mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com" "#foo"
> >> l "mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com" ""
> >> m "mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com" "relfile"
> >>
> >>
> >> We have reached consensus on and approved all these tests
> >> except for the
> >> last which some of us consider an error and others resolve as
> >> indicated in
> >> the html file.
> >>
> >> The rationales for our views are approximately as follows:
> >>
> >> d "http://example.org/dir/file" "../../../relfile"
> >>
> >> [[[RFC2396
> >> In practice, some implementations strip leading
> relative symbolic
> >> elements (".", "..") after applying a relative URI
> >> calculation, based
> >> on the theory that compensating for obvious author
> errors is better
> >> than allowing the request to fail.
> >> ]]]
> >> Not permitted in RDF/XML.
> >>
> >> e,f,i,j,k,l
> >> Base does apply to same document references in RDF/XML
> >>
> >> g
> >> Failure to insert / is a bug with RFC 2396
> >>
> >> h,i,j
> >> Strip frag id from base uri ref before resolving.
> >> Notice j is particularly surprising.
> >>
> >> k,l
> >> Same document reference resolution even works for
> >> non-hierarchical uris.
> >>
> >> m
> >> - no consensus
> >>
> >>
> >> The test suite is structured as follows:
> >>
> >> The positive tests on the test cases web site show a usage of
> >> xml:base in
> >> RDF/XML and the resolution of that usage in terms of the RDF
> >> graph produced
> >> (with absolute URI ref labels). Each test consists of two
> >> files, an RDF/XML
> >> document and an n-triple file (substitute .rdf with .nt in
> >> the URL), being a
> >> list of the edges of the graph.
> >>
> >> The negative test case shows possibly illegal usage of
> >> xml:base in RDF/XML.
> >>
> >>
> >> Our intent is that these tests will be part of a normative
> >> revision of the
> >> RDF recommendation.
> >>
> >> Jeremy Carroll
> >> HP Rep W3C RDF Core WG
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0008.html
> >> 2002-03-22#4: jeremy Send mailto:uri@w3.org with appropriate tests
> >>
> >> [2]
> >> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/xmlbase/
> >>
> >>
>
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2002 11:56:09 UTC