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

Re: Base URI in updates?

From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 09:13:04 -0400
To: "Andy Seaborne" <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
cc: "Steve Harris" <steve.harris@garlik.com>, "SPARQL Working Group WG" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C81BFF20.11B27%ogbujic@ccf.org>
On 5/21/10 4:45 AM, "Andy Seaborne" <andy.seaborne@talis.com> wrote:
> What we decide really does need explaining the counter intuitive nature
> in the doc.


> I'd like to find a way to make the graph URI the base even if that means
> contorting things a little - after all, this 3rd party service/graph
> naming we are using isn't the primary design space of REST anyway.


> I'd argue that the use of the graph=<abs URI> creates a new URI used to
> retrieve the entity.

What if the new URI isn't resolvable? I.e.,

PUT /rdf-graphs/employees?graph=tag%3Aogbujic%40ccf.org%3A2010/consultant/56
Host: example.com
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
 .... no base named ....

We can't say that tag:ogbujic@ccf.org:2010/consultant/56 was used to
'retrieve' anything.
> When we have http://example/x then adding /y changes the URI used to
> retrieve the entity (5.1.3) entity from http://example/x to
> http://example/x/y.
> So adding ?graph=GraphURI changes the URI used to retrieve the entity
> (5.1.3) to GraphURI
> Admittedly weak, but then we are on the boundary of RESTful addressing
> anyway.

Ok.  I agree that 1) we are on the boundary of RESTful addressing and 2) we
want to support this behavior.  I think we can go about it with the
following wording that explains an intepretation of 5.1.2 since I don't
think 5.1.3 would work in all cases:

"In situations where there is no Base URI in the payload and a graph IRI is
embedded, the RDF document that represents [AWWW] the networked RDF
knowledge identified by the embedded graph IRI SHOULD be considered the
retrieval context (5.1.2) [RFC3986].  Thus, the default base URI is the base
URI of that RDF document."
> Analogous situation:
> http://example/foaf is an info resource.
> http://example/foaf#me is not contained in that info resource

This is off topic, but according to the definition of a URI fragment,
http://example/foaf#me *could* be contained in that IR:

"The identified secondary resource **may be some portion or subset** of the
primary resource, some view on representations of the primary resource, or
some other resource defined or described by those representations. "

-- Chime


P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top hospitals
in America by U.S.News & World Report (2009).  
Visit us online at http://www.clevelandclinic.org for
a complete listing of our services, staff and

Confidentiality Note:  This message is intended for use
only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or the employee or agent responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If
you have received this communication in error,  please
contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in
its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy.  Thank you.
Received on Friday, 21 May 2010 13:13:49 UTC

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