Re: docsync: RDF URI Reference

I would suggest we say just URI in most places and then clarify
early one that within the RDF specs "URI" means "URI with optional
fragment identifier".

Patrick

[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 04 November, 2002 21:31
Subject: docsync: RDF URI Reference


> 
> What do we call the things in an RDF graph that identify resources?
> 
> These things are absolute URI's with optional fragment identifiers.  They 
> are not URI references, because URI references can contain a relative 
> URI.  The concepts doc has been using, in part, the term RDF URI References 
> for these things.  Is that a term everyone feels comfortable with using?
> 
> When talking about the RDF/XML syntax, whether in the syntax doc or the 
> primer, or anywhere else, we must be careful how we describe the value of 
> rdf:about and rdf:resource attributes.  The issue here is that we do not 
> process them the same way as the URI spec says.  We do not treat a fragment 
> identifier as a same document reference.  It is important that we are clear 
> that we are not claiming to conform to rfc 2396.  We process RDF URI 
> references and URI references with a relative URI the same way as rfc 2396 
> and XML base specifies.  We process fragment identifiers differently.
> 
> [Hmmm, not sure about the rdf:about="" case].
> 
> The fragment identifier on its own is not a same document reference, as rfc 
> 2396 would have it, because if it were, it would be more difficult to 
> justify using an inscope xml base when translating it to an RDF URI 
> Reference.  So its a fragment identifier and we define our own algorithm 
> for translating those to an RDF URI Reference.
> 
> Also need to be similarly careful describing rdf:ID and rdf:bagID.
> 
> Does that make sense to folks?
> 
> Brian
>

Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2002 01:09:58 UTC