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

Re: [TTL] Standardizing N-Triples

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 21:01:47 +0100
Message-ID: <4D962F2B.4060303@epimorphics.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
CC: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>


On 01/04/11 20:21, Nathan 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?

It's standard dereferencing.

For HTTP, it's well defined.

> 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 :)

I agree - I'm not arguing for relative references (which do include the 
#frag) - I'm pointing out that removing @base does not preclude relative 
IRIs and base processing.

	Andy

>
> Best,
>
> Nathan
>
Received on Friday, 1 April 2011 20:02:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:41 GMT