W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hydra@w3.org > July 2014

RE: Suggestion on URLs for triple pattern fragments

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 20:03:47 -0700
To: <public-hydra@w3.org>
Message-ID: <025b01cfa87e$39755450$ac5ffcf0$@gmx.net>
Hi John,

On 25 Jul 2014 at 02:10, john.walker wrote:
> Hi Ruben,
> In the draft section 4.2.1 you have proposed that constant IRI should
> be "the text value of the IRI, e.g., http://example.org/bar".

This is directly related to ISSUE-30 [1]. I just sent out a mail to move forward with that issue.

> I was thinking that it might be good to stick with existing
> conventions like the N-Triples encoded RDF value syntax (as used by
> Sesame) that expect the IRI to be enclosed in angle brackets, e.g.,
> <http://example.org/bar>.

What would be the advantage of doing so?

> Furthermore this could enable the use of CURIE syntax in triple
> pattern fragments URLs.
> Based on the example with URI template
> http://example.org/dataset?s={subject}&p={predicate}&o={object} a
> client could make requests like:
> http://example.org/dataset?s=%3Chttp%3A%2F%2Fexample.org%2Fbar%3E
> http://example.org/dataset?p=rdf%3Atype
> http://example.org/dataset?p=rdf%3Atype&o=foaf%3APerson
> A server would somehow need to advertise which namespace prefixes it
> supports. One could even define a minimal set of prefixes that an
> implementation must support as part of the standard.

Is that worth the effort if the primary users of this are machines?

> I think adding support for CURIE syntax would help make it a lot
> easier to hack together the URL for a fragment and make them more
> human readable.

Right. But writing a tool which does that for you is much simpler than advertising valid prefixes etc.

[1] https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/30

Markus Lanthaler
Received on Saturday, 26 July 2014 03:04:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:42 UTC