W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > October 2012

Re: Linked Data Platform ISSUE-20: What is the base URI of a POSTed document?

From: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:45:45 -0400
Message-ID: <5076DB99.6010901@w3.org>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
CC: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
On 10/11/2012 10:37 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 10/11/12 9:59 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>> On 11 Oct 2012, at 15:56, Andy Seaborne
>> <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 11/10/12 13:46, Alexandre Bertails wrote:
>>>> But imposing
>>>> absolute URIs to define RDF graph is plain wrong, and highly
>>>> impractical.
>>> Do you agree the RDF specs do require absolute URIs as those specs
>>> are currently written (or drafted in RDF 1.1)?
>> Andy how can the abstract syntax be correct, if RDF/XML has had
>> relative URIs since the beginning, and Turtle also? There is clearly a
>> bug in the abstract syntax.
>>
>>>     Andy
>> Social Web Architect
>> http://bblfish.net/
>>
> +1
>
> I don't understand why the gut reaction is to refer to broken specs.
> These broken specs are the source of so many problems. I don't recall
> any mandate that renders them untouchable etc..
>

It's all about agreement. It's a good thing that people have a stable
definition for RDF that they can refer to. And they do it. So it's not
broken as long as people did agree on a common and stable definition
and continue to use it, which is the case for a lot of people out
there.

But nothing prevents us from defining something a little bit different
if we need to, as long as we say in what ways we're interoperable. And
this appears to be feasible in this case.

Alexandre.
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 14:46:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:17:32 UTC