On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 21:43:08 -0600
Peter DeVries pete.devr...@gmail.com wrote:
I have URI's where case is important only at the terminal identifier.
(HTML URI's in this example)
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p.html
should be different than
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6N7p.html
Am
On 1/22/11 8:27 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 21:43:08 -0600
Peter DeVriespete.devr...@gmail.com wrote:
I have URI's where case is important only at the terminal identifier.
(HTML URI's in this example)
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p.html
should be different than
Harry Halpin wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Out of interest, where is that process defined? I was looking for it the
other day - for instance in the quoted specification we have the example:
edi:price xmlns:edi='http://ecommerce.example.org/schema'
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
David Wood wrote:
On Jan 19, 2011, at 10:59, Nathan wrote:
ps: as an illustration of how engrained URI normalization is, I've
capitalized the domain names in the to: and cc: fields, I do hope the mail
On 1/19/11 11:27 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Kingsley Idehen
kide...@openlinksw.com mailto:kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 1/19/11 10:59 AM, Nathan wrote:
htTp://lists.W3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2011Jan/ -
Personally I'd hope that any
On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 21:45 +, Nathan wrote:
David Wood wrote:
On Jan 19, 2011, at 10:59, Nathan wrote:
ps: as an illustration of how engrained URI normalization is, I've
capitalized the domain names in the to: and cc: fields, I do hope the mail
still come through, and hope that
Hi Dave,
Generally I agree, will address a few specific points in line (just to
address them) then summarize my intended goals at the end (being the
substance of the mail).
Dave Reynolds wrote:
The URI spec (rfc3986[1]) does allow this usage. In particular Section 6
Normalization and
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 13:08 +, Dave Reynolds wrote:
[ . . . ]
It seems to me that this is primarily a issue with publishing, and a
little about being sensible about how you pass on links. If I'm going to
put up some linked data I should mint normalized URIs; I should use the
same spelling
David Booth wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 13:08 +, Dave Reynolds wrote:
[ . . . ]
It seems to me that this is primarily a issue with publishing, and a
little about being sensible about how you pass on links. If I'm going to
put up some linked data I should mint normalized URIs; I should use
* [2011-01-20 14:29:35 +] Nathan nat...@webr3.org écrit:
] RDF Publishers MUST perform Case Normalization and Percent-Encoding
] Normalization on all URIs prior to publishing. When using relative URIs
] publishers SHOULD include a well defined base using a serialization
] specific
Hi:
On 20.01.2011, at 15:40, Nathan wrote:
David Booth wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 13:08 +, Dave Reynolds wrote:
[ . . . ]
To make sure that dereference returns what I expect, independent of
aliasing, then I should publish data with explicit base URIs (or
just
absolute URIs).
Martin Hepp wrote:
On 20.01.2011, at 15:40, Nathan wrote:
David Booth wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 13:08 +, Dave Reynolds wrote:
[ . . . ]
To make sure that dereference returns what I expect, independent of
aliasing, then I should publish data with explicit base URIs (or just
absolute
Hi Nathan,
I largely agree but have a few quibbles :)
On 20/01/2011 2:29 PM, Nathan wrote:
Dave Reynolds wrote:
The URI spec (rfc3986[1]) does allow this usage. In particular Section 6
Normalization and Comparison says:
URI comparison is performed for some particular purpose. Protocols
or
Dave Reynolds wrote:
Okay, I agree, and I'm really not looking to create a lot of work here,
the general gist of what I'm hoping for is along the lines of:
RDF Publishers MUST perform Case Normalization and Percent-Encoding
Normalization on all URIs prior to publishing. When using relative URIs
Nathan wrote:
Dave Reynolds wrote:
All this presupposes some work to formalize and specify linked data.
Is there anything like that planned? In some ways Linked Data is an
engineering experiment and benefits from that freedom to experiment.
On the other hand interoperability eventually needs
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 5:15 AM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
As far as I can see, that's only for a URI reference used within a
namespace, and does not govern usage or normalization when you join the URI
reference up with the local name to make the full URI.
Out of interest, where is that
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
David Wood wrote:
On Jan 19, 2011, at 10:59, Nathan wrote:
ps: as an illustration of how engrained URI normalization is, I've
On 19/01/2011 3:55 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
The information on how to fully determine equivalence according to the
URI spec is distributed across a wide and growing number of different
specifications (because it is schema dependent) and could, in
principle, change over time. Because of the
Dave Reynolds wrote:
On 19/01/2011 3:55 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
The information on how to fully determine equivalence according to the
URI spec is distributed across a wide and growing number of different
specifications (because it is schema dependent) and could, in
principle, change over
Nathan,
If you are going to make claims about the effect of other
specifications on RDF, could you please include pointers to the parts
of specifications that you are referring to, ideally with illustrative
examples of the problems you are? Absent that it is too difficult to
evaluate your claims.
Hi Alan,
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
Nathan,
If you are going to make claims about the effect of other
specifications on RDF, could you please include pointers to the parts
of specifications that you are referring to, ideally with illustrative
examples of the problems you are? Absent that it is too
On 1/19/11 10:59 AM, Nathan wrote:
htTp://lists.W3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2011Jan/ - Personally
I'd hope that any statements made using these URIs (asserted by man or
machine) would remain valid regardless of the (incorrect?-)casing.
Okay for Data Source Address Ref. (URL), no good for
On 1/19/11 16:59 , Nathan wrote:
Hi Alan,
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
Nathan,
If you are going to make claims about the effect of other
specifications on RDF, could you please include pointers to the parts
of specifications that you are referring to, ideally with illustrative
examples of the
* [2011-01-19 11:11:20 -0500] Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com écrit:
] On 1/19/11 10:59 AM, Nathan wrote:
] htTp://lists.W3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2011Jan/ - Personally
] I'd hope that any statements made using these URIs (asserted by man or
] machine) would remain valid
On Jan 19, 2011, at 10:59, Nathan wrote:
Hi Alan,
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
Nathan,
If you are going to make claims about the effect of other
specifications on RDF, could you please include pointers to the parts
of specifications that you are referring to, ideally with illustrative
examples
David Wood wrote:
On Jan 19, 2011, at 10:59, Nathan wrote:
ps: as an illustration of how engrained URI normalization is, I've capitalized
the domain names in the to: and cc: fields, I do hope the mail still come
through, and hope that you'll accept this email as being sent to you. Hopefully
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.comwrote:
On 1/19/11 10:59 AM, Nathan wrote:
htTp://lists.W3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2011Jan/ - Personally I'd
hope that any statements made using these URIs (asserted by man or machine)
would remain valid
[for some reason my client isn't quoting previous mail properly, so my
comments are prefixed with [AR]]
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
David Wood wrote:
On Jan 19, 2011, at 10:59, Nathan wrote:
ps: as an illustration of how engrained URI normalization is,
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 18:16 +, Nathan wrote:
Dave Reynolds wrote:
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 16:52 +, Nathan wrote:
I'd suggest that it's a little more complex than that, and that this may
be an issue to clear up in the next RDF WG (it's on the charter I believe).
I beg to
On Jan 17, 2011, at 13:16, Nathan wrote:
Dave Reynolds wrote:
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 16:52 +, Nathan wrote:
I'd suggest that it's a little more complex than that, and that this may be
an issue to clear up in the next RDF WG (it's on the charter I believe).
I beg to differ.
The charter
Hi Martin,
I have URI's where case is important only at the terminal identifier. (HTML
URI's in this example)
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p.html
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p.htmlshould be different than
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6N7p.html
Am I correct in thinking that
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 3:47 AM, Dave Reynolds
dave.e.reyno...@gmail.com wrote:
As for RIF and GRDDL, can anybody point me to the reasons why
normalization are not performed, does this have xmlns heritage?
Not as far as I know. At least in RIF we were just trying to b
compatible with the RDF
Dear all:
RFC 2616 [1, section 3.2.3] says that
When comparing two URIs to decide if they match or not, a client
SHOULD use a case-sensitive octet-by-octet comparison of the entire
URIs, with these exceptions:
- A port that is empty or not given is equivalent to the default
On 1/17/11 10:51 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:
Dear all:
RFC 2616 [1, section 3.2.3] says that
When comparing two URIs to decide if they match or not, a client
SHOULD use a case-sensitive octet-by-octet comparison of the entire
URIs, with these exceptions:
- A port that is empty or not
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 16:51 +0100, Martin Hepp wrote:
Dear all:
RFC 2616 [1, section 3.2.3] says that
When comparing two URIs to decide if they match or not, a client
SHOULD use a case-sensitive octet-by-octet comparison of the entire
URIs, with these exceptions:
- A
Dave Reynolds wrote:
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 16:51 +0100, Martin Hepp wrote:
Dear all:
RFC 2616 [1, section 3.2.3] says that
When comparing two URIs to decide if they match or not, a client
SHOULD use a case-sensitive octet-by-octet comparison of the entire
URIs, with these exceptions:
On 1/17/11 11:37 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 16:51 +0100, Martin Hepp wrote:
Dear all:
RFC 2616 [1, section 3.2.3] says that
When comparing two URIs to decide if they match or not, a client
SHOULD use a case-sensitive octet-by-octet comparison of the entire
URIs, with
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 1/17/11 10:51 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:
Dear all:
RFC 2616 [1, section 3.2.3] says that
When comparing two URIs to decide if they match or not, a client
SHOULD use a case-sensitive octet-by-octet comparison of the entire
URIs, with these exceptions:
- A
Hi,
I am particularly interested about this issue, because I am currently
struggling with such a problem within the Sindice project.
Given also the answer of Dave, what would be the best practices within a
(RDF) system to correctly handle URIs ?
Should the system implements URI normalisation
Better be a bit more specific.. in-line..
Nathan wrote:
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 1/17/11 10:51 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:
Dear all:
RFC 2616 [1, section 3.2.3] says that
When comparing two URIs to decide if they match or not, a client
SHOULD use a case-sensitive octet-by-octet comparison of
Nuno Bettencourt wrote:
Hi,
Even though I'll be deviating the point just a bit, since we're discussing URI
comparison in terms of RDF, I would like to request some help.
I have a doubt about URLs when it comes to RDF URI comparison. Is there any RFC that establishes if
Janeiro de 2011 16:53
To: Dave Reynolds; Sandro Hawke
Cc: Martin Hepp; public-lod@w3.org
Subject: Re: URI Comparisons: RFC 2616 vs. RDF
Dave Reynolds wrote:
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 16:51 +0100, Martin Hepp wrote:
Dear all:
RFC 2616 [1, section 3.2.3] says that
When comparing two URIs
In the short term, it sounds like there's a gap in the code-ecosystem
for a really lightweight tool which took a stream of N-Triples and just
output a normalised stream of N-Triples ready for import. The examples
below would make a good initial test set for it. I'd write it if I
didn't have a
de Janeiro de 2011 17:34
To: Nuno Bettencourt
Cc: 'Dave Reynolds'; 'Martin Hepp'; public-lod@w3.org
Subject: Re: URI Comparisons: RFC 2616 vs. RDF
Nuno Bettencourt wrote:
Hi,
Even though I'll be deviating the point just a bit, since we're discussing
URI
comparison in terms of RDF, I
Nuno Bettencourt wrote:
Hi,
The doubt just kept on because in all protocols we were still referring to the
same URN.
do you mean that there were RDF statements which linked each of the
protocol specific URIs to a single URN via the same property? eg:
http://... x:foo urn:here
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 16:52 +, Nathan wrote:
Dave Reynolds wrote:
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 16:51 +0100, Martin Hepp wrote:
Dear all:
RFC 2616 [1, section 3.2.3] says that
When comparing two URIs to decide if they match or not, a client
SHOULD use a case-sensitive
Dave Reynolds wrote:
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 16:52 +, Nathan wrote:
I'd suggest that it's a little more complex than that, and that this may
be an issue to clear up in the next RDF WG (it's on the charter I believe).
I beg to differ.
The charter does state:
Clarify the usage of IRI
-lod@w3.org
Subject: Re: URI Comparisons: RFC 2616 vs. RDF
Dave Reynolds wrote:
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 16:51 +0100, Martin Hepp wrote:
Dear all:
RFC 2616 [1, section 3.2.3] says that
When comparing two URIs to decide if they match or not, a client
SHOULD use a case-sensitive octet-by-octet
On 2011-01 -17, at 16:37, Dave Reynolds wrote:
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 16:51 +0100, Martin Hepp wrote:
Dear all:
RFC 2616 [1, section 3.2.3] says that
When comparing two URIs to decide if they match or not, a client
SHOULD use a case-sensitive octet-by-octet comparison of the entire
...@webr3.org]
Sent: segunda-feira, 17 de Janeiro de 2011 18:06
To: Nuno Bettencourt
Cc: public-lod@w3.org
Subject: Re: URI Comparisons: RFC 2616 vs. RDF
Nuno Bettencourt wrote:
Hi,
The doubt just kept on because in all protocols we were still referring to
the same URN.
do you mean that there were
50 matches
Mail list logo
