Re: Practical issues arising from the "null relative URIs"-hack

On 3 Apr 2014, at 13:06, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org> wrote:

> Richard,
> 
> your statement is more politically-correct, but that's not the point.
> 
> After all these efforts by the community to argue that "RDF is a data
> model and not syntax" and point this out as a newbie-misconception
> (should I bring up RDF/XML here?), suddenly it is fine to have a
> specification that does the opposite: base itself on RDF syntax, not
> data model? Most of presentations about RDF that I've seen emphasize
> absolute URIs, but now it looks like we were doing it all wrong and we
> can come up with Relative-RDF at a snap of a finger.
> 
> Failure by the WG to see that it is the wrong level of abstraction
> baffles me. Absolute URI-based serializations (like N-Triples) and
> toolkit support (RDF-compliant, mind you) goes out the window (working
> with RDF on the string level does not count). How in the world is this
> going to help implementations of LDP and adoption of Linked Data in
> general?

Martyas, it is clear that it could be very useful to have a specification
of relative graphs and their properties. We don't have this yet, and we
don't absolutely need it, since we can work at the concrete syntax level
in ways specified by the abstract syntax specification.

The WG could suggest to the RDF WG that a specification of relative graphs
and how it would fit with the abstract syntax would be very helpful in many
ways. I think Richard even acknowledged this would be good and useful. But
I don't see that this group needs to wait for that to happen.

> 
> 
> Martynas
> graphityhq.com
> 
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
>> On 3 Apr 2014, at 11:03, Reto Gmür <reto@apache.org> wrote:
>>> and LDP doesn't base on RDF.
>> 
>> LDP is more than POST on containers, and Turtle is part of RDF. What you mean to say is:
>> 
>> "The POST behaviour of LDP containers doesn't base on the RDF abstract syntax."
>> 
>> There is no need to undermine your own argument by shrouding an *entirely valid technical point* in unnecessary divisiveness and FUD.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Richard

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/

Received on Thursday, 3 April 2014 11:53:42 UTC