- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 20:28:50 +0200
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: Alex Hall <alexhall@revelytix.com>, "nathan@webr3.org" <nathan@webr3.org>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 29 Apr 2011, at 19:50, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote:
>
> I'm not personally keen on this absolute IRI restriction. I included
> it in this proposal in order to minimize the permutations being
> examined at once ("minimal change"). For usability, I find
> Data:
> <s> <p> <o> .
> Query:
> ASK { ?s <p> ?o }
>
> very intuitive when you don't have to specifically call out a base
> URI. Using IRI references instead of IRIs would permit the above query
> to work in e.g. Jena (which currently presumes absolute IRIs).
>
Do you mean that the RDF concepts should allow relative URI-s (well, IRI-s) in Graphs? That might be a pretty major change in RDF; what would dereferencing mean? Where would the base come from? Would two graphs with different bases but otherwise identical relative IRI-s be identical? Etc...
Do we have a convincing use case to engage into this?
Ivan
Received on Friday, 29 April 2011 18:27:10 UTC