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.

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 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:11 UTC