- 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