- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 11:58:51 +0000
- 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 UTC