- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:53:06 +0100
- To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
On 11/10/12 15:34, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 10/11/12 9:56 AM, Andy Seaborne 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 >> >> >> > > Which ultimately brings us back to the eternally overlooked fact that > RDF != Linked Data :-) RFC 3986 is neutral to RDF or linked data. The fact it puts a blocker to a perfectly reasonable, although arguably whether it's properly RESTful [*], use of POST is a bit of a nuisance (tm). Relative linked data needs to address the reasons RDF is built on absolute IRIs. It's a different UC to Alexandre's but it's still a valid one. Andy [*] Most RESTful would be to POST the entry for the container to add, not rely on an action to a different resource elsewhere. PS The charter says "RDF" as one of the two technologies to combine. > > Links: > > 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Sep/0003.html > -- not too old thread about this distracting RDF and Linked Data > conflation matter. >
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 14:53:37 UTC