- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 09:06:29 +0300
- To: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org, ext Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
On Apr 08, 2004, at 12:45, ext Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > I agree - this is the correct practical algorithm, I'll see if I can > get some text in there. > > i.e. the URI is the base URI in scope on the outermost RDF element of > the document (typically the rdf:RDF of an RDF/XML or OWL document). > This may be the xml:base or the retrieval URI of the document. Right. That's a better way to put it. And if there is no such base URI defined in scope for the root rdf:RDF element, then the graph is not named. Patrick > > Jeremy > > > > > > Patrick Stickler wrote: > >> On Apr 07, 2004, at 17:10, ext Chris Bizer wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I updated the draft for the Named Graph homepage and included the >>> comments >>> from Patrick and Jeremy. I also added RDF/XML as a third possible >>> syntax for >>> Named Graphs to section 3: >>> >>> 3.3 RDF/XML >>> >>> A collection of RDF documents can be seen as a set of Named Graphs. >>> This >>> gives Named Graphs upward compatibility with RDF/XML, but has the >>> disadvantage that retrieval URL, document name and graph name are >>> mixed up. >> I've been chewing on this a bit more recently, and I still think that >> it >> makes alot more sense to derive the name of an RDF/XML encoded graph >> based >> on the xml:base value *of the root <rdf:RDF> element*. >> Yes, it is true that any element in the RDF/XML can have its own >> xml:base >> attribute defined, but there can be at most one such attribute defined >> for the <rdf:RDF> element, so there's no ambiguity there. >> And since the xml:base value need have no correlation to the URI via >> which >> the RDF/XML instance was obtained, we avoid the URI denotation >> ambiguity >> otherwise introduced by taking the access URI as denoting the graph. >> Otherwise, I'd prefer to simply state that there is no obviously >> correct >> and reliable means to associate a graph name URI with an RDF/XML >> instance >> in the instance itself, and avoid (being misunderstood) proposing that >> the access URI be used (which I think is a mistake/hack/etc.). >> Thus, >> <rdf:RDF xml:base="http://example.org/foo" ...> >> ... >> <rdf:Description xml:base="http://example.org/bar" ...> >> ... >> </rdf:RDF> >> equates to >> <http://example.org/foo> { >> ... >> } >> Note that the second xml:base on the description element has >> no affect on the name of the graph. >> Also, this works even when mulitiple RDF/XML fragments are >> embedded in the same e.g. XHTML document, since each root >> <rdf:RDF> element can have its own xml:base value and hence >> a distinct name. >> We'd restrict the interpretation of xml:base to explicit >> attributes occurring on the root <rdf:RDF> element, not >> inherited from a higher XML scope. >> Eh? >> Patrick >>> >>> Chris >>> <NamedGraphsPage.zip> >> -- >> Patrick Stickler >> Nokia, Finland >> patrick.stickler@nokia.com > > -- Patrick Stickler Nokia, Finland patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2004 02:08:40 UTC