Re: Gaspart's Comments

It might be wise to include some statement to the effect that OWL  
itself takes no position of whether an xml:base may include a fragment  
ID, and defers entirely to RDF syntax on this issue... according to RDF  
syntax ...

On the other hand I agree that it is a bit weird that xml:base may be a  
URI reference rather than simply a URI ... base URIs are weird enough  
(IMHO) that perhaps the OWL Guide ought not add fire to an arcane  
debate unless there is good reason to, consequently I'd agree that the  
trailing '#' ought be dropped ... perhaps this is a typo? Or is there  
some reason the trailing '#' was included?

I'd favor saying that this was a typo and correcting it, but noting  
that it is legal regardless given RDF syntax. I can live with stating  
that is is legal given RDF syntax, and to direct any issues with this  
over there.

Jonathan

>
>
> I can improve my option 2 having looked at rdf-syntax-grammar and
> rdf-testcases
>
> Old dodgy bit
>
> ****
> Thus when xml:base is used with a uri reference value, in fact only  
> the URI
> (without the fragment) is used as the document base.
>
> This is also clear in the algorithm in section 5.2 of RFC 2396 that  
> makes no
> reference to the fragment part of the base URI.
> ****
>
> New more bullet proof version (repalcing dodgy bit)
>
> [[[
>
> Thus when xml:base is used with a URI reference value, in fact only  
> the URI
> (without the fragment) is used as the document base.
>
> This is made explicit in RDF Syntax (Revised)
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-rdf-syntax-grammar-20031215/#section- 
> baseURIs
> "any fragment part is ignored."
>
> This is expanded in the test case
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/xmlbase/ 
> Manifest.rdf#test013
> showing that
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/xmlbase/test013.rdf
> corresponds to the triples in
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/xmlbase/test013.nt
>
> which shows the fragment part being ignored in three different ways.
> ]]]
>
> (Author of test xmlbase-013 - J.J Carroll :-)
> )
>
> I think with the bullet proofed text I now prefer #2 (optionally with  
> #3) over
> #1.
>
> I note that the response #2 (i.e. from the previous message and this  
> message
> combined) does not need a WG decision - it merely explains to the  
> commentator
> why we were right.
>
> I can now draft a full response if the chairs and/or the guide editors  
> would
> like one.
>
> Jeremy
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 5 January 2004 18:16:22 UTC