https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1335
Bug ID: 1335
Summary: We use an obsolete URI spec for definition of Document
Namespace and do so incorrectly
Product: SPDX
Version: 2.0
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: Spec
Assignee: [email protected]
Reporter: [email protected]
Classification: Unclassified
First, in SPDX 2.0, we define a document namespace as âunique absolute
Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) as specified in RFC 2396â. First, RFC 2396
has been obsoleted by RFC-3986 (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 âabsoluteâ ones. The
structure of the URI after the schema is defined by schema. So unless we
proscribe a specific schema, we canât mandate a specific hierarchical syntax
without deviating from the RFCs (see RFC 2396 section 3 or the newer RFC3986
section 4.3). This is further specified in RFC-7320 (which amends 3986) 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]. 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 â#â. And if the
schema:somethingelse format is acceptable, then we should fix SPDX tools or
update (or tweak) the prohibitive code in Jena.
First introduced on the spdx-tech mailing list:
http://lists.spdx.org/pipermail/spdx-tech/2015-October/002841.html
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Spdx-tech mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
