- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:40:03 +0000
- 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