- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 10:49:31 +0100
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Ron, Thanks for picking this up. I have added http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-xml-base to the issues list. Brian > RE: RDF and xml:base > > From: Ron Daniel (rdaniel@interwoven.com) > Date: Wed, May 09 2001 > > *Next message: W.M. Jaworski: "RE: Language? [3]" > > * Previous message: Danny Ayers: "RE: Language?" > * Next in thread: Aaron Swartz: "Re: RDF and xml:base" > * Reply: Aaron Swartz: "Re: RDF and xml:base" > * Reply: Graham Klyne: "RE: RDF and xml:base" > * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] > * Other mail archives: [this mailing list] [other W3C mailing lists] > * Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ] > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: "Ron Daniel" <rdaniel@interwoven.com> > To: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@swartzfam.com>, "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org> > Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 12:59:34 -0700 > Message-ID: <EMEKICCGFEKJFGKMFLEPAEOLCHAA.rdaniel@interwoven.com> > Subject: RE: RDF and xml:base > > Aaron asks: > > > I'm unaware of how xml:base should be used in RDF. Are their any > > thoughts on > > this as an interoperability consideration, etc.? > > Sure. First, the RDF community needs to see if XML Base has any > special impact on us. If it has a special impact on us, then we > need to start yelling. If it does not, then it is really an XML > feature that is almost orthogonal to our concerns. In that case, > I don't think we need to put special provision for it into any > revision of the model, unlike xml:lang, which may have > a need for being reflected in the model. > > If we find that xml:base has no SPECIAL impact on us, we should > just do the typical steps of: > 1) putting examples of its use into a future revision of the > Syntax spec. > 2) encouraging parser writers to add support for it to their > software. > 3) cautioning creators of descriptions that use of the xml:base > attribute may harm interoperability for the next year or so until > parsers that deal with it are more widespread. However, they are > free to use it if they want. > > > What parsers implement this? > > Right now? None that I know of, although adding it to RDFFilter > looks fairly straightforward. > > All of this is contingent on the question of whether the XML Base > proposal has any special impact on RDF. So let's talk about that. > > I currently believe that xml:base does not have any special impact > on RDF, although it may be of limited utility. > > All that the XML Base proposal does is > give a way of setting a base URI to use when absolutizing relative > URI references in XML documents. While RDF documents are rife with > URI references, few of them are relative. For example, the description > > <rdf:RDF 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="huh.txt"> > <dc:creator>J. Smith</dc:creator> > <dc:subject rdf:resource="http://example.com/codes#foo"/> > <dc:subject rdf:resource="http://example.com/codes#bar"/> > </rdf:Description> > </rdf:RDF> > > contains 1 relative reference ("huh.txt"), 6 QNames which are > URI references according to the RDF concat rule (rdf:RDF, > rdf:Description, rdf:about, dc:creator, dc:subject, rdf:resource), > and four absolute URI references (the two namespace URIs, plus > "http://example.com/codes#foo/" and "http://example.com/codes#bar/"). > > The one relative reference requires a base be established. Typically > the base is the current document, see RFC 2396 for the 4 rules on > how to come up with a base URI. So this description assumes it is in > a file in the same directory as huh.txt. > > We could use xml:base to eliminate the duplicate URI in the /foo > and /bar subject codes - ala > > <rdf:Description xml:base="http://example.com/codes" ... > ... > <dc:subject rdf:resource="foo"/> > <dc:subject rdf:resource="bar"/> > ... > > The problem here is that the only places to hang a single xml:base > attribute so we can eliminate the duplication will also make it apply > to the value of the rdf:about attribute - which makes life hard when > trying to say what file something applies to. > > On the other hand, if someone wanted to model their problem as > having one subject arc with a Bag of values, then xml:base is > more useful: > > <rdf:Description rdf:about="huh.txt"> > ... > <dc:subject xml:base="http://example.com/codes"> > <rdf:Bag> > <li rdf:resource="foo"/> > <li rdf:resoruce="bar"/> > </rdf:Bag> > ... > > So - I think xml:base is not harmful but will have limited value in > many RDF descriptions. No need to preclude, but no need to accelerate. > > Regards, > > Ron Daniel Jr. > Standards Architect > Tel: +1 415 778 3113 > Fax: +1 415 778 3131 > Email: rdaniel@interwoven.com > > Visit www.interwoven.com > Moving Business to the Web > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > * Next message: W.M. Jaworski: "RE: Language? [3]" > * Previous message: Danny Ayers: "RE: Language?" > * Next in thread: Aaron Swartz: "Re: RDF and xml:base" > * Reply: Aaron Swartz: "Re: RDF and xml:base" > * Reply: Graham Klyne: "RE: RDF and xml:base" > * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] > * Other mail archives: [this mailing list] [other W3C mailing lists] > * Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Received on Friday, 1 June 2001 05:50:27 UTC