On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 15:07:00 +0000 (UTC), "Andy Seaborne (JIRA)"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> {{<app:://4a8a0ff8-eab0-3930-8257-017dec3a8356/manifest0.xml>}} is a good IRI.
> Note "::" -- the stack trace has ":" -- both are legal.
My mistake in Jira :) Are you sure "::" would be legal anyway?
>
> {noformat}
> public static void main(String... args) {
> IRIFactory f = IRIFactory.iriImplementation();
> IRI iri =
> f.create("app://4a8a0ff8-eab0-3930-8257-017dec3a8356/manifest0.xml");
> IRI iri2 = iri.resolve("./BorisEJB.xml");
> System.out.println(iri2);
> Iterator<Violation> vIter = iri2.violations(true) ;
> for ( ; vIter.hasNext() ; )
> System.out.println(vIter.next().getShortMessage()) ;
> }
> {noformat}
> There is a warning.
That's what I would have thought.
But rules seems stricter when parsing RDF/XML as it uses a differently
configured IRIFactory and deliberately bails out on the IANA violation.
I'll try to make a separate test and report on dev@jena
to see if this is intentional or not.
>
> But
> {noformat}
> at
> org.apache.jena.rdfxml.xmlinput.impl.ARPSaxErrorHandler.error(ARPSaxErrorHandler.java:37)
> at
> org.apache.jena.rdfxml.xmlinput.impl.XMLHandler.warning(XMLHandler.java:196)
> {noformat}
> does not agree with the current Jena code.
Hmm.. perhaps the classpath didn't fully update? In Eclipse it seemed
like it only had the new Jena version, but of course Maven might think
otherwise. Will triple-check with mvn help
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes
The University of Manchester
http://www.esciencelab.org.uk/
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
