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

Re: Some informative edits in the Concepts ED

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 12:35:35 -0500
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6161D747-09F2-405F-98E2-375A7A785F46@greggkellogg.net>
On Nov 6, 2012, at 2:58 AM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:

> Some additions/clarifications in informative text in the Concepts ED based on various comments received over the last weeks:
> 
> [[
> Perhaps the most important characterisitic of IRIs in web architecture is that they can be dereferenced, and hence serve as starting points for interactions with a remote server. This specification, however, is not concerned with such interactions. It does not define an interaction model. It only treats IRIs as globally unique identifiers in a graph data model that describes resources.
> ]]
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#referents

+1

> [[
> Some concrete RDF syntaxes permit relative IRIs as a convenient shorthand that allows authoring of documents independently from their final publishing location. Relative IRIs must be resolved against a base IRI to make them absolute. Therefore, the RDF graph serialized in such syntaxes is well-defined only if a base IRI can be established [RFC3986].
> ]]
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#dfn-relative-iri

+1

Both of these address my concerns about making more normative statements about dereferencability; as does your note on orthogonality in specifications.

Gregg

> Best,
> Richard
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 17:36:21 GMT

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