W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > January 2011

Re: URI Comparisons: RFC 2616 vs. RDF

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:38:04 -0500
To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
Cc: nathan@webr3.org, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@W3.ORG>
Message-ID: <1295534284.2874.27714.camel@dbooth-laptop>
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 13:08 +0000, Dave Reynolds wrote:
[ . . . ]
> It seems to me that this is primarily a issue with publishing, and a
> little about being sensible about how you pass on links. If I'm going to
> put up some linked data I should mint normalized URIs; I should use the
> same spelling of the URIs throughout my data; I'll make sure those URIs
> dereference and that the data that comes back is stable and useful. If
> someone else refers to my resources using an aliased URI (such as a
> different case for the protocol) and makes statements about those
> aliases then they have simply made a mistake.
> 
> To make sure that dereference returns what I expect, independent of
> aliasing, then I should publish data with explicit base URIs (or just
> absolute URIs). Publishing with relative URIs and no base is a recipe
> for having your data look different from different places. Just don't do
> it. 

This advice sounds like an excellent candidate for publication in a best
practices document.  And if it is merely best practice guidance, perhaps
that *is* something that the new RDF working group could address.



-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2011 14:38:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:31 UTC