- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:55:38 +0200
- To: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-ldp-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <AB703C5B-1322-4417-9637-CC1A1C611F4D@bblfish.net>
On 11 Oct 2012, at 16:39, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org> wrote: > On 10/11/2012 10:25 AM, Henry Story wrote: >> >> On 11 Oct 2012, at 15:59, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 11/10/12 14:29, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >>>>> I thinkAndy was saying that that the RDF triples -/containing absolute >>>>> URIs/- are the data. >>>>> >>>> >>>> But that simply isn't accurate. >>> >>> Kingsley - >>> >>> We can resolve this quite simply - what do the specs say? We can wish for one thing but that does not make it automatically true. >>> >>> So please reference the spec text - I'm quite happy to be shown to be wrong here, it wouldn't be the first time! >> >> :-) Ok so please hold on here >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-IRIs >> [[ >> Some concrete syntaxes permit relative IRIs as a shorthand for absolute IRIs, and define how to resolve the relative IRIs against a base IRI. >> ]] > > Andy is right: there is no relative URIs in RDF-as-a-model. > > But that's ok as this does not prevent one to write an algorithm > defining a "graph of relative IRIs" that is waiting to be a plain RDF > graph. For example in the RDB2RDF Direct Mapping [1]: > > [[ > The algorithms in this document compose a graph of relative IRIs which > must be resolved against a base IRI [RFC3987] to form an RDF graph. > ]] > > Alexandre. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdb-direct-mapping/#emp-addr Nice find! And I agree. One can define a new concept of a graph of relative URIs. Certain rules of RDF logic just won't be able to apply in such a graph. (eg: it won't be possible to merge two graphs using normal RDF merging without finding some new method such as graph context skolemization ) > >> >> ( They should really say "most") >> >> The syntaxes can only specify how to resolve a relative URI relative to a base URI. >> It is up to other specs to define how you get the BASE url. For example it is >> not necessarily the URL you GET, because http allows the server to return a 301 >> which changes how you interpret the relative URLs in the graph. If you open a file >> on the file system, you don't even use HTTP but the relative URL is then >> file:///localhost/... >> >> >> So the same here with POST. With POST *we* define how we get the BASE URL. >> We are not the first to do so, as I mentioned previously here is an RFC >> which I suppose had a lot of reviews >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5995#section-3.4 >> >> Adapted that section to Turtle you get: >> >> _Request_ >> >> POST /collection;add-member/ HTTP/1.1 >> Host: example.com >> Content-Type: text/turtle >> Slug: Sample Title >> Content-Length: 67 >> >> @prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> >> <> a foaf:Document . >> >> _Response_ >> >> HTTP/1.1 201 Created >> Location: http://example.com/collection/sample%20title >> >> Good so I think we can multiply the number of RFCs and documents on this subject. >> >> >> >>> >>> Andy >>> >> >> Social Web Architect >> http://bblfish.net/ >> > Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 14:56:26 UTC