Re: A modest attempt to re-open ISSUE-20

tl;dr:

The spec will have to note that you can not use N-triples for POST to a 
LDPC.

On 14/03/13 08:09, Henry Story wrote:
>
> On 14 Mar 2013, at 08:26, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto@apache.org
> <mailto:reto@apache.org>> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net
>> <mailto:henry.story@bblfish.net>> wrote:
>>
>>
...

>> IIUC, the server will know but the producer of the RDF serialization
>> does not. So what is effectively serialized is not actually RDF but a
>> pseudo RDF supporting relative URIs that can only be serialized in
>> those RDF serializations implicitly supporting this.
>
> What you are serialising is a concrete syntax, not an abstract syntax.
> Concrete syntaxes can have
> relative URLs.

Concrete syntax is the Turtle.  Abstract syntax is the RDF.

I don't understand that statement - surely the stuff you are serializing 
from has absolute URIs if it's RDF?

> When the Jena or Sesame APIs allow you to create such serialisations are
> those libraries lying because they don't know where the serialisation is
> going to end up on your hard drive or on your server?

Yes - although "lying" is too emotive.

It would be better to call them baseless URIs when in client form.

(pun intended :-))

> When an artist
> produced HTML with relative URLs and sends a tar of it to the company
> that made the request, is the html sent  to them flawed because the
> artist does not know the exact path for where the html is going to end
> up at? ( Put some RDFa in the html if you feel like saying the example
> is irrelevant )

The URIs in the content change and the sender can not be sure the 
intended meaning is preserved.

Would you sign such a document as back up claims against it?

>> I think not letting the client deal with the RDF on the abstract
>> syntax level is quite a severe limitation.
>
> That is why we are using the concrete syntax Turtle to pass information
> to and fro, not the abstract one.

I think the point is how does the client create such baseless data, not 
how is it exchanged.

For example, the client can only generate local data in this fashion - 
any data they have received or gathers from elsewhere will be using 
absolute URIs.

So if you view the client as editting information to reside in the LDPR, 
then arguing at the pure syntax level if fine.  It's an exchange of 
bytes, not of RDF.

If you view the client as creating some abstract syntax (information) 
and publishing it at an LDPR whether via an LDPC or PUT and maybe 
publishing the information at the places as well), then you have to talk 
in terms of a template, not actual information.

In defining POST-LDPC, the spec needs to say that you can't use 
N-triples.  There's no base, internally or externally.

	Andy

>
> Henry
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Reto
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>

Received on Thursday, 14 March 2013 09:03:52 UTC