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

Re: Section 4: LDPR/non-LDPR formal definitions

From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:40:37 -0700
Message-ID: <5151EBA5.9070202@berkeley.edu>
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
CC: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-ldp@w3.org
hello henry.

On 2013-03-26 10:03 , Henry Story wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2013, at 17:25, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> some may be dereferencable, but you don't know which, and you don't know the service semantics of doing so.
> That is not anymore the status quo in RDF land. As Richard just pointed out, the spec defining
> RDF graphs says, when explaining what the IRIs in an RDF graph mean  (http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#referents )

i am really wondering what makes you think that the status quo of RDF 
being an URI-centric data model has changed in any way. quoting from the 
section you linked to:

"Perhaps the most important characterisitic of IRIs in web architecture 
is that they can be dereferenced, and hence serve as starting points for 
interactions with a remote server. This specification, however, is not 
concerned with such interactions. It does not define an interaction 
model. It only treats IRIs as globally unique identifiers in a graph 
data model that describes resources."

some IRIs can be dereferenced, others not (RDF allows you to use any URI 
scheme you like). how to dereference IRIs (i.e., how to behave when 
actually engaging in hypermedia interactions) is out of scope of RDF, as 
the spec itself says. how much more clear could the spec be?


Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:41:10 UTC

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