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

Re: RDF-ISSUE-103 (dereferenceable-iris): Make dereferenceable IRIs a SHOULD in RDF Concepts [RDF Concepts]

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 11:58:51 +0000
Message-ID: <5093B57B.6010301@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org


On 01/11/12 14:07, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> -1 on this from me.

I agree: -1 to using RFC2119 words.

> I have nothing against saying that it is good practice under some
> conditions, but *SHOULD* is quite a strong thing to say.

+1 to say it's good practice.  And the meaning does not change etc etc.

	Andy

>
> peter
>
> On 11/01/2012 09:42 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 11/1/12 9:33 AM, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>> RDF-ISSUE-103 (dereferenceable-iris): Make dereferenceable IRIs a
>>> SHOULD in RDF Concepts [RDF Concepts]
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/103
>>>
>>> Raised by: Markus Lanthaler
>>> On product: RDF Concepts
>>>
>>> Lately there haven been quite some discussions about what formats are
>>> valid Linked Data. Everyone agreed that at least RDF is certainly one
>>> of them. Nevertheless, nowhere in RDF Concepts there's a normative
>>> statement that IRIs SHOULD be dereferenceable which is the core
>>> principle of Linked Data. The only statement I found about this is
>>>
>>> "A good way of communicating the intended referent to the world is to
>>> set up the IRI so that it dereferences[WEBARCH] to such a document."
>>>
>>> I would thus like to propose that a normative statement like the
>>> following is added to RDF Concepts:
>>>
>>> "When deferenced, IRIs SHOULD return an RDF Document that describes
>>> the denoted resource by means of RDF statements."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes!
>>
>> Then at the very least, you have much clearer sense of how RDF and
>> Linked Data are related i.e., RDF enables you create Linked Data. Much
>> better than the quantum leap to the distorted realm of RDF and Linked
>> Data isomorphism.
>>
>
>
Received on Friday, 2 November 2012 11:59:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:52 GMT