- 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>
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 UTC