Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
as of 2010-01-07
Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas
on 7 Jan 2010 at 12:10
Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas
on 18 Jan 2010 at 12:08
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
From Keith via email to the list:
http://tinyurl.com/yd82v5b
http://tinyurl.com/ybpwuhj
rkb explorer use grounded regexes (starting with ^), everyone else doesn't
Original comment by richard....@gmail.com
on 31 Mar 2010 at 6:29
We resolved to define the property as: "the regex must match anywhere in the
URI". The Guide should also
mention that it's good practice to anchor the regex with a "^" in the
beginning, and to escape dots with a
backslash
Original comment by richard....@gmail.com
on 9 Apr 2010 at 10:36
As of 2010-04-22, Michael will take over, introducing new section 1.9 that
covers
everything related to void:uriRegexPattern
Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas
on 22 Apr 2010 at 11:53
Made changes as discussed today, see
http://code.google.com/p/void-impl/source/detail?r=97
Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas
on 22 Apr 2010 at 12:48
Nice work on Section 1.9! Proposed changes:
1. Remove the "view live" link -- that's not the thing to put into a
specification-style document
2. Remove ".+" from the end of the regex, it's unnecessary
3. Add a line afterwards: "This states that the dataset containsdescriptions of
resources whose URIs start with
http://acm.rkbexplorer.com/id/ (and of other resources, possibly)."
4. "a regular expression pattern that matches one or more URIs in the dataset."
Perhaps better: "a regular
expression pattern that matches the URIs of some resources that are described
in the dataset."
Original comment by richard....@gmail.com
on 7 May 2010 at 5:09
To add: "Note: In the Turtle syntax, any backslashes in literals have to be
escaped
with another backslash. This is why the example contains double backslashes. In
RDF/XML, the same literal would be written as:
<void:uriRegexPattern>^http://acm\.rkbexplorer\.com/id/.+</void:uriRegexPattern>
"
after the example.
Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas
on 27 May 2010 at 9:45
Updated section 1.9 now, see revision 124 - ready to close after group review
Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas
on 8 Sep 2010 at 3:18
As per 2010-09-15 closed.
Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas
on 15 Sep 2010 at 11:52
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
richard....@gmail.com
on 17 Nov 2009 at 3:25