- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:40:53 +0100
- To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <BC918061-1A10-46D5-BB3D-E73C9788A244@bblfish.net>
I think all examples are using full URIs when relative ones
would do. E.g Example 1.
[[
# The following is the representation of
# http://example.org/container1
@prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/>.
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>.
@prefix ldp: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#>.
<http://example.org/container1>
a ldp:Container;
dcterms:title "A very simple container";
rdfs:member
<http://example.org/container1/member1>,
<http://example.org/container1/member2>,
<http://example.org/container1/member3>.
]]
This would be better written as
[[
# The following is the representation of
# http://example.org/container1
@prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/>.
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>.
@prefix ldp: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#>.
<> a ldp:Container;
dcterms:title "A very simple container";
rdfs:member <member1>, <member2>, <member3> .
]]
This was in fact decided as part of ISSUE-29 "Relative URIs
are crucial" and it is Action-30 for Steve Speicher.
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/30
But I just thought I'd nudge this one as I noticed it.
Henry
A short message from my sponsors: Vive la France!
Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Monday, 14 January 2013 11:41:34 UTC