No, no bug. I missed the salient point of your previous message in my haste. I see now that the problem is the content of the rdfs:replaces rdf:resource="", not a problem of resource resolution as I originally assumed. Interesting that the document was valid using the w3c RDF validator.
I have updated the rdf document with fixes that separate the replaced terms into their own instances of rdfs:replaces. Let me know if you have any other issues with the document. It is very useful having someone actually trying to make use of it at this stage in the review.
Thanks,
John
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Hilmar Lapp hlapp@duke.edu wrote:
Well they prevent the ontology from loading in Protege. Are you saying that the java.net.URI parser has a bug?
-hilmarOn Feb 22, 2009, at 5:34 PM, John R. WIECZOREK wrote:
Those URIs will not resolve, they are URIs to elements that only ever appeared in XML schemas in the past. They are needed in there for completeness.
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Hilmar Lapp hlapp@duke.edu wrote:
On Feb 22, 2009, at 5:12 PM, John R. WIECZOREK wrote:
Just a quick answer right now to point you to rdf for the DwC (similar to Dublin Core's rdf) that has just begun the review process as a TDWG Standard.
Awesome! This is going to be really useful I think.
-hilmarBTW the file at the above URL doesn't parse (at least not in Protege).
"[line=127:column=796] URI 'http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/curatorial/YearIdentified-2003-06-17, MonthIdentified-2003-06-17, DayIdentified-2003-06-17' cannot be resolved against curent base URI http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/rdf/dwcterms.rdf"
(The root exception is java.net.URISyntaxException: Illegal character in path at index 60: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/curatorial/YearIdentified-2003-06-17, MonthIdentified-2003-06-17, DayIdentified-2003-06-17)
--
: Hilmar Lapp -:- Durham, NC -:- hlapp at duke dot edu :
--
: Hilmar Lapp -:- Durham, NC -:- hlapp at duke dot edu :