On 10/01/12 17:42, Benson Margulies wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Andy Seaborne<[email protected]> wrote:
On 08/01/12 17:26, Benson Margulies wrote:
OK, the basic problem here is what I documented in JENA-188. However:
<urn:jug:rel#r0abc6927-28b0-4183-937c-5f016bf6a02b.1>
versus
model.setNsPrefix("rel", "urn:jug:rel#");
I guess I'll go debug some more.
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Benson Margulies<[email protected]>
wrote:
I make some calls to setNsPrefix. That produces @prefix lines at the
top, but it doesn't cause the prefixes to actually get used. What am I
missing?
Hi Benson,
if the prefix is "urn:jug:rel" (no "#") then there isn't a legal prefix name
because # isn't allowed in the prefix name local part (RDF/XML or turtle).
That seems to imply that a prefix has to be the full scheme+ssp+# or
longer, right? So my patch isn't crazy, though the wording could be
improved.
Not crazy - it has to include upto and including # to be affective.
Relative URIs are a whole different ball game :-|
base: <urn:jug:rel>
and
<#r0abc6927-28b0-4183-937c-5f016bf6a02b.1>
is legal although the turtle writer tries not to write relative URIs as
they are not portable. if you move the file, the base changes; there
can be several possible base URIs for one file (e.g. different host
names for the same server).
Andy
<urn:jug:rel#r0abc6927-28b0-4183-937c-5f016bf6a02b.1>
It so happens that the RDF working group is standardising Turtle.
It has added the ability to have \-escapes in the local part so
rel:\#r0abc6927-28b0-4183-937c-5f016bf6a02b.1
will become legal.
Andy
