- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 21:40:40 +0100
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 11:40 18/04/2003 -0500, pat hayes wrote: >>This is for information, no action requested. >> >>First, the minutes of the URI BOF held at the last IETF meeting are at [1]: >> >>Also, there is an issue list [2] >> >>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2003Mar/0043.html >> >>[2] http://www.apache.org/~fielding/uri/rev-2002/issues.html >> >>... >> >>And so to the blank URI question: >> >>I was reminded obliquely (by a comment about splitting URIs into QNames >>in Jena) that the folks looking at RFC2396bis (URI spec revision) have >>raised the issue of how to treat fragments attached to blank URIs. > >What is a blank URI?? Does it have anything to do with a blank node in >RDF? (I hope not.) Er, no. In this context, it's a (relative) URI that happens to be an empty string. I mentioned this because it touches upon the discussion we had a while ago (c. Cannes, IIRC) about how to interpret a bare fragment identifier in RDF, within the scope of an xml:base declaration. The suggested revised wording for RFC2396 allows an interpretation of this scenario that might be regarded as less surprising than the current situation concerning xml:base in RDF. #g -- >>Currently, according to RFC2396, #frag is always relative to the current >>document rather than the current URI resolution base. This caused us >>some debate about how to deal with xml:base in RDF. >> >>The current thinking in the URI group is to replace this with a >>discussion of (non-) retrieval when a bare fragment is used: >> >>[[ >>017-rdf-fragment: >>One cannot use the fragment to indicate relative to a base document, >>other than to the current document. Some want to allow XML parsers >>for RDF to use base URI+fragment together. The proposal would replace >>discussion in current document with extended discussion of retrieval >>when base is same as current document. There was support for this the >>floor. >>]] >>-- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2003Mar/0043.html >> >>[[ >>Note that this issue is a request to change the "current document" >>algorithm. This can be accomplished by changing the spec to remove >>the bit about current document and instead replace the empty URI with >>the base URI, later stating that a retrieval action must not take place >>if the new URI differs from the base URI only by its fragment. >>]] >>-- http://www.apache.org/~fielding/uri/rev-2002/issues.html#017-rdf-fragment >> >>(Actually, I think there's a typo there in the issue list: the minutes >>reflect my understanding.) >> >>#g >> >> >>------------------- >>Graham Klyne >><GK@NineByNine.org> >>PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E > > >-- >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home >40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office >Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax >FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell >phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes >s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2003 16:44:35 UTC