Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

xAPI Profiles 2.0 / Alignment to xAPI 2.0: IRI comparison #270

Open
imartinezortiz opened this issue Sep 26, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

xAPI Profiles 2.0 / Alignment to xAPI 2.0: IRI comparison #270

imartinezortiz opened this issue Sep 26, 2024 · 0 comments

Comments

@imartinezortiz
Copy link
Contributor

Change Log Item Ids

s16, s17, s18

1.0.3 text -> 9274.1.1 Update

When re-using an existing identifier, Metadata Providers SHOULD* ensure that the exact character equivelent IRI is used.
->
Unclear and unnecessary. Requirement removed.

When storing or comparing IRIs, LRSs SHOULD* handle them only by using one or more of the approaches described in 5.3.1
(Simple String Comparison) and 5.3.2 (Syntax-Based Normalization) of RFC 3987, and SHOULD* NOT handle them using any approaches described in 5.3.3 (Scheme-Based Normalization) or 5.3.4 (Protocol-Based Normalization) of the same RFC, or any other approaches.
->
When storing or comparing IRIs, LRSs shall handle them only by using one or more of the approaches described in 5.3.1 (Simple String Comparison) and 5.3.2 (Syntax-Based Normalization) of RFC 3987.

LRSs SHOULD* apply the same IRI comparison and normalization rules with all IRIs in parameters and fields defined to contain IRIs.
->
removed, handled by change s-16

Updates to xAPI Profile spec

  • update to Profile Server section to indicate how IRIs should be stored in triple store and compared
  • Profile Server response to new profiles that use IRIs already defined within existing profiles

This issue has been migrated from FeLungs#6

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant