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

Re: URI Comparisons: RFC 2616 vs. RDF

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:40:03 +0000
Message-ID: <4D384943.8020302@webr3.org>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
CC: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@W3.ORG>
David Booth wrote:
> 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.

+1 from me, address at the publishing phase, allow at the consuming 
phase, keep comparison simple.
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2011 14:42:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:11 UTC