W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Question about "paths as URIs" in the BBC RDF

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:02:42 +0100
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd1001290302l650cc4bdj390fbd4473dd28ba@mail.gmail.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>, Ross Singer <rossfsinger@gmail.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On 29 January 2010 00:31, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:

> I have got one kind of big question; why not just be more verbose and
> include full URIs? if it ensures that the data is always perfect and
> full abstracted from the notion of HTTP (touchy subject?)[1] then why
> not do it?

Including an xml:base would have the same effect as using full URIs
for the same-base links (ensuring the data is always perfect could be

I do think adding an xml:base or using absolute URIs would be a good
move, the point re. separation of concerns is a good one.

Which approach is easier to implement is another matter (ease of
implementation here is probably more significant than questions of

In practice I've been caught out numerous times with downloaded
base-free data, winding up with fairly useless file:/// URIs.


Received on Friday, 29 January 2010 11:03:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:02 UTC