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

Re: Base URI in updates?

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:23:28 +0000
Message-ID: <4B6C4600.9020004@talis.com>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>


On 05/02/2010 15:53, Steve Harris wrote:
> On 5 Feb 2010, at 15:31, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>> This arose because of baseless RDF/XML and wanting to copy them from
>> the their original URL to a harvesting store.
>>
>> What's the base URI when using SPARQL HTTP Update when using remote
>> naming (?graph=)
>>
>> It looks to me like it's the whole of:
>>
>> http://server/service?graph=http://examples/myGraph
>
> FWIW, in 4store it's <http://examples/myGraph> in this example. In our
> experiences this more matches user expectations with regard to relative
> URIs.

That's what I'd like it to be ... I don't think that HTTP allows it 
though :-(

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1808.txt
3.  Establishing a Base URL

       .----------------------------------------------------------.
       |  .----------------------------------------------------.  |
       |  |  .----------------------------------------------.  |  |
       |  |  |  .----------------------------------------.  |  |  |
       |  |  |  |   (3.1) Base URL embedded in the       |  |  |  |
       |  |  |  |         document's content             |  |  |  |
       |  |  |  `----------------------------------------'  |  |  |
       |  |  |   (3.2) Base URL of the encapsulating entity |  |  |
       |  |  |         (message, document, or none).        |  |  |
       |  |  `----------------------------------------------'  |  |
       |  |   (3.3) URL used to retrieve the entity            |  |
       |  `----------------------------------------------------'  |
       |   (3.4) Base URL = "" (undefined)                        |
       `----------------------------------------------------------'


RFC2068 had "Content-Base"
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2068.txt

but that did not make it to 2616

[[ RFC 2616: 19.6.3
    Content-Base was deleted from the specification: it was not
    implemented widely, and there is no simple, safe way to introduce it
    without a robust extension mechanism. In addition, it is used in a
    similar, but not identical fashion in MHTML [45].
]]

although having to set a header at all is not convenient.

	Andy

>
> Agreed that the draft should be clearer in this regard.



>
> - Steve
>
Received on Friday, 5 February 2010 16:24:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:41 GMT