- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 20:09:56 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, Alex Hall <alexhall@revelytix.com>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Ivan Herman wrote:
>
> 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?
and would that not just be any string is a valid name, as in may as well
have literal subjects and predicates?
Received on Friday, 29 April 2011 19:10:49 UTC