- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 14:47:31 -0500
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>,public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
>On 07/12/13 16:01, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>
>> I'd propose it's the dataset (<>) that's the WebSource, not /bob
>that's
>> the WebSource.
>
>Doesn't his mak eit more complicated in ways that are not the key point
>
>at that place in the primer?
>
>RDF is defined in terms of absolute URIs. <> is concrete syntax only.
>Either use full URIs or explain what <> is. And explaining is another
>level needed at a point when there is enough going on.
>
I was thinking this bit didn't need to be explained in all its detail. It could be easily done with a full URI ("for example, if the following document were published at http://example.org/ex1").
Also, <> is an idiom that's incredible popular in turtle (and equivalent in other rdf syntaxes, like rdf: about=""). It's hard to imagine someone getting very far with RDF not knowing it.
>If you want to talk about ways to write concretely things so they work
>for practical matters like moving them about or referring to "nearby"
>content, it needs to go elsewhere.
>
>(Aside from the fact that you can have two trivially different URLs to
>get to a document with <> which makes the whole thing messy in the
>detail.)
>
It seems to me the beauty of <> is that it works even when the trivial url differences crop up. Reading it as "this document" glosses over the machinery very elegantly.
- Sandro
> Andy
Received on Saturday, 7 December 2013 19:47:40 UTC