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

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

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 20:09:56 +0100
Message-ID: <4DBB0D04.9030702@webr3.org>
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

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