- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 07:29:46 -0400
- To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <5076ADAA.6060705@openlinksw.com>
On 10/11/12 5:06 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> On 10 Oct 2012, at 17:03, Andy Seaborne >> <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote: >> >>> This does have a real consequence to implementation: >>> >>> A design that >>> >>> 1/ receive POST -- some general receipt handling >>> 2/ content-type: parse body as RDF >>> 3/ Decide it's a container >>> 4/ dispatch request to container >>> 5/ Create new BPR >>> >>> trying to create an abstraction of "incoming RDF", does not work >>> because the parsing happens before the operation is known to be a >>> container with specific action of creating the new BPR. >> >> There are a few answers to that: >> >> A. you simply don't parse the RDF and just serialise it to disk into >> the file name created around 3 in your design. Doing that >> everything will >> work just right, because the relative URLs will automatically turn >> into >> the right URLs when fetched in the next round. >> (I imagine that this is exactly what MUST happen in WebDAV or Atom) > > Aside: I think this is pushing it a bit too far - RDF is a data model, > Turtle a transfer syntax. The Turtle bytes aren't the data - the RDF > triples (absolute URIs) are. I don't understand your comment above. How are "absolute URIs" the data? URIs simply denote entities. In this case, they denote entities in an RDF graph (content in the form of structured data accessible from an address). -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 11:30:09 UTC