- From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:03:12 -0700
- To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- CC: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, guha@alpiri.com, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Aaron Swartz wrote: > > Sergey Melnik wrote: > > > Moreover, if the distinction between relative and absolute URLs > > is required, the parsers will need to support it as well. > > What do you mean? Relative URIs are abbreviations for absolute > URIs, and turn out to be very useful in practice. See: > > http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Model > http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/ModelConsequences > > RDF definitely needs relative URIs. What it sounds like you want > is better ways of dealing with base URIs, which I agree with. To clarify, the parsers will need to explicitly flag each generated resource as originating from an absolute or relative URL. Do we want to introduce these extra "flags" as a part of the model? In my opinion, while relative URLs are very useful for HTML, they may be harmful for RDF (discussed a lot on RDF Interest). Sergey
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2001 18:50:28 UTC