RE: Relative IRI Resolution

On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 12:59 PM, Thomas Hoppe wrote:
> On 11/13/2013 12:08 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 11:51 AM, Thomas Hoppe wrote:
> >> I have just wrapped my head around a very subtle detail of the spec
> >> regarding IRI resolution.
> >> Say I'd like to have a node like this:
> >>
> >> {
> >>     "@context": {
> >>       "label": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label"
> >>     },
> >>     "@id": "4711",
> >>     "label": "Just a simple document"
> >> }
> >>
> >> Which has been retrieved from this URI:
> >>
> >> http://api.example.com/docs/4711
> >>
> >> Following the statements and definitions in sections "6.1 Base IRI" and
> >> "5.2 IRIs" one could think that the resulting IRI is:
> >>
> >> http://api.example.com/docs/47114711
> > Why? That's not how relative IRI resolution works. JSON-LD works
> > exactly the same way as, e.g, HTML or CSS in this regard.
> 
> Well look at the example "Example 7: IRIs can be relative" given in
> section 5.2.
> which uses "../" as @id one could deduce that if there are no slashes
> in the
> @id that they are just concatenated.
> However, if it is defined in the API as you state below I'm happy :)

There's nothing in the spec indicating that, is there? It's also not how
relative IRIs work in any other technology I'm aware of. The prose above
example 7 explains how the relative IRI is interpreted:

    Values that are interpreted as IRIs, can also be expressed as
    relative IRIs. For example, assuming that the following document
    is located at http://example.com/about/, the relative IRI ../
    would expand to http://example.com/


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2013 13:05:17 UTC