W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: Base URI in updates?

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 09:29:47 +0100
Message-ID: <4BF24FFB.0@talis.com>
To: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
CC: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, SPARQL Working Group WG <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I was pointing out that there is another situation to consider under a 
heading of resolving relative references, which is relative URIs in the 
payload of the message.


If relative IRI <x> is in the payload for the request
  PUT /rdf-graphs/employees?graph=http://otherserver/consultant/56
what is the proposed resolved absolute IRI?

If it's not


then it's going to be quite confusing because the same message sent to 
different service endpoints but the same graph=IRI has different 
absolute IRIs in it.


On 17/05/2010 11:33 PM, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
> I'm incorporating this into the current editor's version:
> On 3/11/10 6:47 AM, "Andy Seaborne"<andy.seaborne@talis.com>  wrote:
>> The other case is the base URI for the document received:
>> PUT /rdf-graphs/employees?graph=http://otherserver/consultant/56
>> Host: example.com
>> <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
>> <rdf:RDF
>> .... no base named ....
>> </rdf:RDF>
>> gets a base URI for the parsing of the RDF/XML document of
>> http://otherserver/consultant/56
> This seems like too strong an interpretation of "For a document that is
> enclosed within another entity, such as a message or archive, the retrieval
> context is that entity." I'm assuming that is the layer you used to justify
> this? It is the identifier that is embedded not the serialization of the RDF
> graph it identifies (indirectly).
> -- Chime
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 08:30:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:00 UTC