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

Re: Absolute IRIs (Was: Re: IRI guidance)

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 20:28:50 +0200
Message-Id: <484CBF0E-3122-4502-82E9-663D48514211@w3.org>
Cc: Alex Hall <alexhall@revelytix.com>, "nathan@webr3.org" <nathan@webr3.org>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@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?

Received on Friday, 29 April 2011 18:27:10 UTC

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