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

On 11 Oct 2012, at 17:09, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>> <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.
> 
> Problem: RDF != Linked Data.
> 
> This group is supposedly about a profile for the Linked Data meme.

yes, but as far as possible we use the specs we have, including RDF.
I don't think we really have a problem here at all. 

This is a bit  like WebID ( http://webid.info/spec ) and TLS. The 
TLS folks never foresaw WebID's use of TLS, and so it takes a lot of 
work not to build the technology, but to change their thinking. And 
there is nothing they can do about it, which is to our advantage 
because we got TLS for free in every browser. 

Same here we get RDF tools for free including Jena, Sesame and Virtuoso.
But if you constantly oppose RDF and linked Data, people may at some
point start thinking that Virtuoso is not interested in interoperability.

We need to stop opposing and start composing, as Bernard Stiegler 
(the philosopher who gave the keynote on WWW2012) points out often 
enough.

> 
>> 
>> 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.

But the RDF specs are very useful. And neither should one just constantly
try to push them aside as irrelevant.

In this case I don't think neither the RDF spec, nor the URI spec, nor the HTTP
spec say anything about how in a POST to a container the base URI is decided.

We have a webdav spec that shows how we can do it, and we can work with that


> 
>> 
>> Alexandre.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kingsley Idehen	
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/