- From: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:45:45 -0400
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- CC: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
On 10/11/2012 10:37 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 10/11/12 9:59 AM, Henry Story wrote: >> On 11 Oct 2012, at 15:56, Andy Seaborne >> <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 11/10/12 13:46, Alexandre Bertails wrote: >>>> But imposing >>>> absolute URIs to define RDF graph is plain wrong, and highly >>>> impractical. >>> Do you agree the RDF specs do require absolute URIs as those specs >>> are currently written (or drafted in RDF 1.1)? >> Andy how can the abstract syntax be correct, if RDF/XML has had >> relative URIs since the beginning, and Turtle also? There is clearly a >> bug in the abstract syntax. >> >>> Andy >> Social Web Architect >> http://bblfish.net/ >> > +1 > > I don't understand why the gut reaction is to refer to broken specs. > These broken specs are the source of so many problems. I don't recall > any mandate that renders them untouchable etc.. > It's all about agreement. It's a good thing that people have a stable definition for RDF that they can refer to. And they do it. So it's not broken as long as people did agree on a common and stable definition and continue to use it, which is the case for a lot of people out there. But nothing prevents us from defining something a little bit different if we need to, as long as we say in what ways we're interoperable. And this appears to be feasible in this case. Alexandre.
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 14:46:20 UTC