- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 17:34:13 -0000
- To: "Stephen Williams" <stephenswilliams@yahoo.com>, <Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com>, <www-rdf-validator@w3.org>
[--aside who is www-rdf-validator nowadays?--] Sorry Stephen for taking so long to reply to this. My understanding of your query is that: - If we replace both occurrences of cr:test with crtest in your example then the picture coming out of the validator is different. - The equivalent experiment with Beckett's code is that the triples coming out are identical (except for the change in label). I am clear that you have identified an ARP defect here, and have entered this into Bugzilla. I typically clear the bugs before each release. I guess I am looking at another ARP release before christmas? The rdf:resource="#cr:test" and the rdf:ID="cr:test" are I think identical and ARP should behave identically towards both. However, what it does is to treat the first as an illegal URI and the second as a legal fragment ID. In default mode, ARP responds to illegal URIs by issuing a warning message and then treating the exact text string as if it were a legal absolute URI. Hence "#cr:test" is not treated as a fragment ID. I will need to refer to RFC 2396 to determine whether or not "#cr:test" is a legal relative fragment URI or not. I will do this when I fix the bug. So the fix will either: - allow the first occurrence or - forbid the second occurrence I don't know which yet. Jeremy > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Williams [mailto:stephenswilliams@yahoo.com] > Sent: 08 November 2001 22:47 > To: Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com; www-rdf-validator@w3.org > Subject: RDF Validation Question > > > Hi Jeremy > > If I reference a description identified with a > namespace qualified ID then the RDF validator does not > make this association, E.g.: > > <rdf:Description rdf:ID="one"> > <sw:name rdf:resource="#cr:test"/> > </rdf:Description> > <rdf:Description rdf:ID="cr:test"> > <sw:first_name>xxx</sw:first_name> > <sw:last_name>yyy</sw:last_name> > </rdf:Description> > > However, if the ID is not namespace qualified then the > validator makes the association. > > However, Dave Beckett's Redland RDF Database Demo at > http://www.redland.opensource.ac.uk/demo appears to > make the association when namespace ID's are used. > > Is it correct to use namespaces with ID's with in RDF? > > Thanks for your assistance. > > Stephen Williams > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Find a job, post your resume. > http://careers.yahoo.com > >
Received on Friday, 23 November 2001 12:35:00 UTC