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

On 10/11/12 10:45 AM, Alexandre Bertails wrote:
> 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
>>> <> 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
>> +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.

Problem: RDF != Linked Data.

This group is supposedly about a profile for the Linked Data meme.

> 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.

Yes, which has a lot to do with why the Linked Data meme exists and why 
it should never be conflated with RDF.

> Alexandre.



Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web:
Personal Weblog:
Twitter/ handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile:
LinkedIn Profile:

Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 15:09:53 UTC