Re: HTTPS and the Semantic Web

Hi Henry,
Thanks for the pointer to POWDER; I was not aware of it yet.
On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
wrote:
> I want to point out that a similar issue has already been around for as
> long as the SW exists: IRIs that differ only in terms of escaping are
> different SW names even though they denote the same Web location. In
> practice I do not always see a data publisher make explicit (`owl:sameAs')
> assertions between [3] and [4] (although some do, I've seen them in LOD
> Laundromat).
>
> I think that equivalence is covered by the URI and IRI spec. URIs have to
> be compared for equivalence after denormalisation, including relative URI
> resolution. ie. <https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/POWDER> is the same as <
> https://www.w3.org/2002/../2001/sw/wiki/POWDER>.
>
Do you have a reference for the use of denormalization in IRI equivalence
checking in RDF? IIUC the current RDF 1.1 specification
<https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-IRIs> takes a different
stance:
IRI equality: Two IRIs are equal if and only if they are equivalent under
Simple String Comparison according to section 5.1
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987#section-5.1> of [RFC3987
<https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#bib-RFC3987>]. Further
normalization *MUST
NOT* be performed when comparing IRIs for equality.
The relation of my remark to the HTTPS discussion is that I can find
empirical evidence in LOD Laundromat that some people are already adding
`owl:sameAs' links between what they consider to be syntactic variations of
the same identifiers.
You are right that HTTP/HTTPS is not a syntactic rewrite of the same
identifier according to the IRI spec, but my point is that
percent-encoded/unencoded is not a syntactic rewrite of the same identifier
according to the RDF spec either.
---
Cheers!,
Wouter.