Re: Relative URIs in xml:base - RDF/XML parser disagreement?

Thanks

this is an ARP bug. I'll try and reproduce, and then fix it.
(Hmmm, a surprise as well I thought I had coded for that case :( )

I'll also dig down the specs. It may be a corner case, but I don't 
recall any ambiguity in XML Base Rec for this case.


Jeremy


Dan Brickley wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <rdf:RDF xml:base="http://example.org/" 
> xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-
> rdf-syntax-ns#"
>  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
>  <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/" xml:base="test1/">
>    <dc:title>World Wide Web Consortium</dc:title>
>    <dc:source rdf:resource="test2/"/>
>    <dc:relation rdf:resource=""/>
>  </rdf:Description>
> </rdf:RDF>
> 
> 
> ...is a test of xml:base stacking with relative URIs.
> 
> I tried the online Raptor service, and got:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/     http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/relation     
> http://example.org/test1/
> http://www.w3.org/     http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source     
> http://example.org/test1/test2/
> http://www.w3.org/     http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title     World 
> Wide Web Consortium
> 
> I tried latest ARP download on commandline, and got:
> 
> Warning: 
> file:///Users/danbri/Desktop/jena/Jena-2.2/../xmlbase1.rdf[4:69]: {W107} 
> Bad URI <test1/>: No scheme found in URI 'test1/'
> <http://www.w3.org/> <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title> "World Wide 
> Web Consortium" .
> <http://www.w3.org/> <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source> 
> <file:///Users/danbri/Desktop/jena/test2/> .
> <http://www.w3.org/> <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/relation> 
> <file:///Users/danbri/Desktop/jena/Jena-2.2/../xmlbase1.rdf> .
> 
> The test case is basically an RDFization of the example in 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/#syntax
> (tried out of curiosity after a thread on the atom-syntax list).
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Syntax-ID-xml-base 
> doesn't seem to
> require absolute URIs in RDF's treatment of xml:base, nor rule out the 
> stacking behaviour.
> 
> So from a quick look I'd guess that ARP is in error, rather than Raptor. 
> This is a somewhat
> obscure corner-case so I expect other parsers might also vary in 
> behaviour...
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Dan
> 
> ps. the dc:relation thing is in there because
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JanMar/0234.html 
> via
> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-xml-base tells me that "" 
> self-refs aren't
> affected by xml:base. Not sure if that decision got reverted.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-testcases-20040210/ has a good set of 
> xmlbase tests
> but it doesn't seem to exercise this possibility (of multiple xml:base, 
> some relative).
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <rdf:RDF xml:base="http://example.org/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
>   xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
>   <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/" xml:base="test1/">
>     <dc:title>World Wide Web Consortium</dc:title> 
>     <dc:source rdf:resource="test2/"/>
>     <dc:relation rdf:resource=""/>
>   </rdf:Description>
> </rdf:RDF>
>

Received on Monday, 18 July 2005 12:44:35 UTC