- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 22:02:44 +0300
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
sorry, forgot, S&AS does not conflict ... the sentence quoted was concerning the abstract syntax, which is well removed from surface representation issues such as XML Base. The usage of xml:base that already happens, for example with our owl:imports test cases, is that the xml:base and rdf:about idiom specifies a logical location, and the document might actually have been retrieved from somewhere else, such as in a zip file, or a local cache. The S&AS sentence does suggest that it would be a mistake to use a URL for an ontology that was different from the one that can be retrieved from that URL; and would discourage the use of a non-retrievable URI with some private mechanism to relate URIs with ontologies. (The Web get action is the ontology retrieval action). The quotes from Guide do not contradict this. A further reason why the xml:base mechanism is good is that many different URLs retrieve the same physical bits. By including an xml:base within the bit-stream then one of those equivalent URLs is given as preferenced, by the document author. This minimizes the need for the receiver to make good. e.g. http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl can be retrieved with: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl.rdf HTTP://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl http://www.w3.org:80/2002/07/owl HTTP://18.7.14.127/2002/07/owl.rdf However, because of the xml:base in it, all of these correspond to identical RDF graphs. See http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/ARPServlet?PARSE=Parse%20URI:%20&URI=HTTP://18.7.14.127/2002/07/owl.rdf Jeremy
Received on Friday, 2 May 2003 16:02:35 UTC