W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp@w3.org > March 2013

Re: Section 5.4.8 null relative URI

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:08:57 +0100
Cc: James Leigh <james@3roundstones.com>, "public-ldp@w3.org" <public-ldp@w3.org>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org Working Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <67270FF4-FAC1-4383-8F89-2A4BDD2D9520@bblfish.net>
To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Note I had allready opened an issue-51
https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/51

based on this mail. Perhaps the solution requested is different, so
those may be different.

On 15 Mar 2013, at 14:57, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> wrote:

> Hi James,
> 
> Thank you for your comment.  This issue is being formally tracked here:
>  https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/54
> 
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:16:20 -0400, James Leigh wrote:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-ldp-20130307/#http-post-1 says:
>>        5.4.8 In RDF representations, LDPC servers must interpret the
>>        null relative URI for the subject of triples in the LDPR
>>        representation in the request entity body as referring to the
>>        entity in the request body. Commonly, that entity is the model
>>        for the “to be created” LDPR, so triples whose subject is the
>>        null relative URI will usually result in triples in the created
>>        resource whose subject is the created resource.
>> 
>> According to the above the term <> in turtle should be replaced with the
>> to-be-created URI. However, the term <#adr> would still be resolved
>> against the base URI of the document (either in the @base directive,
>> Content-Location, or the request-uri). This will be hard to implement as
>> most Turtle parsers do not expose the relative lexical term used in the
>> document, but often only the absolute URI.
>> 
>> In Callimachus we experimented with overriding the base URI while
>> parsing, but that proved problematic as many turtle writers don't allow
>> explicit term representations and it prevented the use of general
>> purpose entity handling (on either client or server). In the end we
>> realized that by overriding the base URI we were essentially /forking/
>> Turtle and only parsers/writers that were aware of this could be trusted
>> preserve the null relative URI.
>> 
>> Callimachus now requires the client to create a URI and use it in the
>> RDF document. However, the server may end up substituting the primary
>> URI with a canonical variant. I suggest the LDP spec adopt a similar
>> approach.
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> --
> http://about.me/david_wood
> 
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/



Received on Friday, 15 March 2013 14:09:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:03:10 UTC