W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2011

Re: [TTL] Standardizing N-Triples

From: Alex Hall <alexhall@revelytix.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 15:29:58 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTinF=PnqGc5Y0TMAv-9-ueLbaJsdYPHjGqh0zeCW@mail.gmail.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:

> Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> On 01/04/11 20:06, Nathan wrote:
>>> Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>> Are there examples of real worlds data that uses relative IRIs in
>>>> N-triples? If not, we could decide that theer is no base processing in
>>>> RDF-triples, absolute IRIs only.
>>> How can we have @base processing if there are no directives or @base
>>> definitions? I'd strongly suggest we keep this to *IRI*s only.
>> The base is also set by where the file is read from.
> Indeed, reliably though? for instance taking in to account the file being
> sent by email, being part of a zip archive, being in the message body of a
> PUT HTTP request, being in the body of a GET HTTP response with a
> Content-Location which differs from the effective request URI?
> Personally, I'd quite like that can of worms left closed for RDF-Triples :)

+1, but that reflects my bias as a developer, where often times all I'm
handed is an input stream with no information about where the content came
from.  It's nice to be able to use that information when it's available, but
I think it's extra complexity that's best left out of a simple format like

Received on Friday, 1 April 2011 19:30:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:58 UTC