Good catches Yev - I agree we should update version 2.1 with the proposed changes. The RFC change is pretty clear.
For the change to hierarchical, I don't think that anyone would object to requiring hierarchical URI's since they are the most common. We should, however, verify that with the tech dist. list. If anyone on the email list disagrees with adding the restriction of a hierarchical URI please reply and we can either continue the email dialog or schedule a discussion on a future tech call. Gary From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Yev Bronshteyn Sent: Monday, October 5, 2015 3:34 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Document Namespace as URI I ran into a couple of issues with document namespaces. SPDX 2.0, we define a document namespace as “unique absolute Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) as specified in RFC 2396”. First, RFC 2396 has been obsoleted by RFC-3986 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986> (2396 was a draft, 3986 is the final version). I would suggest that we update this in the 2.1 spec. Second, SPDX Tools currently require hierarchical URIs, specifically of the form schema://somethingelse. This is actually a Jena limitation, not something we impose. But in the specs, this is not required for URIs, even “absolute” ones. The structure of the URI after the schema is defined by schema. So unless we proscribe a specific schema, we can’t mandate a specific hierarchical syntax without deviating from the RFCs (see RFC 2396 section 3 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2396#section-3> or the newer RFC3986 section 4.3 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-4.3> ). This is further specified in RFC-7320 (which amends 3986) section 2.3 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7320#section-2.3> : Scheme definitions define the presence, format, and semantics of a path component in URIs; all other specifications MUST NOT constrain, or define the structure or the semantics for any path component. The only exception to this requirement is registered "well-known" URIs, as specified by [RFC5785 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5785> ]. See that document for a description of the applicability of that mechanism. For example, an application ought not specify a fixed URI path "/myapp", since this usurps the host's control of that space. So my point here is, if we want to maintain the document namespace format as schema://somethingelse, then, I submit, we need to indicate this as a deviation from the URI spec, just as we do with the prohibition of “#”. And if the schema:somethingelse format is acceptable, then we should fix SPDX tools or update (or tweak) the prohibitive code in Jena. Sorry for the convoluted email. cid:7EA68D51-363B-4FAD-A939-D9CD926D70AB Yev Bronshteyn Senior Software Engineer <http://www.blackducksoftware.com/> Black Duck Software
_______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
