W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > August 2012

Re: JSON-LD terminology

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 12:51:32 +0100
Message-ID: <5040A544.9020402@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org


On 31/08/12 12:29, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> It claims any RDF document is a Linked Data document. That simply isn't
> accurate. The RDF spec makes no claims about IRIs being:
>
> 1. de-referencable
> 2. http: scheme based.

Let's talk about what the document actually says in section 3.1 and not 
make comments about political opinion and what one "ideal world" might 
look like.

The document says:

[[
7. IRIs used within a linked data graph SHOULD be dereferenceable to a 
Linked Data document describing the resource denoted by that IRI.
]]

SHOULD, not MUST.

In reality, not all IRIs are going to be dereferencable.

The condition should be "potentially dereferencable" because the burden 
is far too high otherwise.

We all might think it is a good idea but I for one am not going to 
condemn a data publisher if it uses another scheme or has not put up a 
document at some URI at the time of publication.  The publisher might 
have very good reasons for it.

 From experience, this is impractical anyway because you can loose 
control of a URI space.  URIs live on.

JSON-LD does not mention http: schemes and is not limited to them. 
http: is highly desirable but not necessary.

	Andy
Received on Friday, 31 August 2012 11:52:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:06 UTC