Possible test case candidate?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Possible test case candidate?

Toby Inkster-4
What triple should this generate?

        <div xmlns:blank="_:"
             about="[blank:foobar]"
             rel="next"
             resource="[blank:foobaz]"
             ></div>

Here are a few candidates as N-Triples:

# Just treat the CURIE prefix like any other, even though "_" is not
# a registered URI scheme (and syntactically cannot be).
<_:foobar>
  <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#next> <_:foobaz> .

# This is what my parser currently does because it passes resources
# about as plain strings, so the fact that they're not really bnodes
# gets lost.
_:foobar
  <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#next> _:foobaz .

# If "blank" is completely ignored as a CURIE prefix, then perhaps
# @about and @resource are treated as relative URIs?
<%5Bblank:foobar%5D>
  <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#next> <%5Bblank:foobar%5D> .

# Or maybe as references to the current document?
<>
  <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#next> <> .

--
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:[hidden email]>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible test case candidate?

Ivan Herman-2
Hey Toby

On 2009-12-11 17:43, Toby Inkster wrote:

> What triple should this generate?
>
> <div xmlns:blank="_:"
>     about="[blank:foobar]"
>     rel="next"
>     resource="[blank:foobaz]"
>     ></div>
>
> Here are a few candidates as N-Triples:
>
> # Just treat the CURIE prefix like any other, even though "_" is not
> # a registered URI scheme (and syntactically cannot be).
> <_:foobar>
>   <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#next> <_:foobaz> .
>
This actually makes sense; CURIE does not talk about URI schemes, only
about concatenation of strings. After all, I can very well write

xmlns:bla="http://www.ex.org/something/"

and then use bla:else to get a valid URI (I actually use that scheme
quite a lot...).

(by the way: this is what my distiller does at the moment)

> # This is what my parser currently does because it passes resources
> # about as plain strings, so the fact that they're not really bnodes
> # gets lost.
> _:foobar
>   <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#next> _:foobaz .
>

Which would also make sense and is not necessarily in contradiction with
the previous. We could decide that URI-s of the form _:bla denote blank
nodes, regardless of whether they come from a CURIE or not. In other
words, we 'reserve' the thing-looking-like-a-URI-scheme _: to denote
blank nodes. This is not in the current RDFa doc, though.

Ivan

> # If "blank" is completely ignored as a CURIE prefix, then perhaps
> # @about and @resource are treated as relative URIs?
> <%5Bblank:foobar%5D>
>   <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#next> <%5Bblank:foobar%5D> .
>
> # Or maybe as references to the current document?
> <>
>   <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#next> <> .
>

--

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf


smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment