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

On 3/31/14 12:36 PM, Reto Gmür wrote:
>
> The spec could be clearer and say that for the POST turtle is not used 
> to serialize a graph but that here it serializes a graph template[1] 
> (which is, IIUC what refer to as graph declaration). But such 
> increased clarity wouldn't change anything to the fact that the spec 
> is built on specific notations, abusing their relative IRI feature to 
> build such RDF templates.
>
>
>     If we can be a little clearer, the confusion can be addressed.
>
>
> To me the problem is not confusion, but the inability to use every 
> serialization (e.g. serializations that allow signing of the sent 
> graph) and  RDF tools in a straight forward manner. This problem arise 
> from the spec being (for these part) designed for the notation rather 
> than for RDF.
>
> The spec could promote the use of relative URIs consistently against 
> the URI of the HTTP request whenever the serialization supports this. 
> But the actual normative part should be based on RDF. I think this 
> would better satisfy both the RDF as well as the REST[2] goal of the 
> charter.

Yes!

+1

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen