- From: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:57:17 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- CC: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, public-ldp-wg <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
On 10/11/2012 08:15 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > On 11/10/12 12:56, Henry Story wrote: >> What are these violations of the URI spec? >> RFC3986 permits relative URLs ( in section 42 no less;-) > > Section 5.1.3 defines how the base URI is determined - it's not an > arbitrary choice. RDF does not allow relative URIs. > > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Graph-URIref > > The complete solution is POST to container, get back a Location:, maybe > a 301 (Moved Permanently), and PUT or POST to the location. But it's a > round trip and (arguably) an impractical nuisance. This is pretty far from what people do out there with Web APIs... I believe that it's easy to solve: don't say that you POST an RDF graph, just call it *relative* RDF Graph. In practice, the Container knows what will be the final URL for the document, so it will be able to resolve the URIs. > > If you want to use N-triples (no base URI), and the subject is the BPR, > then you have to know the BPR URI before creating the N-Triples. No, this is just wrong: you want to be able to define the graph without knowing where it will live beforehand. Alexandre. > > Andy > >
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 12:57:23 UTC