Why is all discussion going on on the restricted list? (fwd Re: A modest attempt to re-open ISSUE-20)

I like the W3C for its discussion to be so open. For example I like to be
able not to just follow the tag discussion but also to be able to
participate if I think that I have something relevant to say.

Why is the ldp discussion mostly going on on a list where non-member cannot
post? The public list is very low activity and non of the posts this year
got an answer.

Below my latest unsuccessful post on the other list.

Cheers,
Reto

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto@apache.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>wrote:
>
>>
>> On 13 Mar 2013, at 10:40, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On 13/03/13 07:10, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
>> >> Henry,
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net
>> >> <mailto:henry.story@bblfish.net>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>    The abstract syntax  specificiation allows for relative URLs:
>> >>    http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#rdf-documents
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This section is about serialization; it explicitly says "concrete
>> syntaxes".
>> >> On the other hand, the definition of IRI for the graph model
>> >>
>> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-iri
>> >>
>> >> explicitly says "IRIs in the RDF abstract syntax MUST be absolute".
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> >
>> > A syntax may allow a relative URI but that's in a document and a
>> document has a base URI.  The relative URI is relative to some base URI.
>>  Relative URI have a role in syntax
>> >
>> > RFC 3986 makes it clear:
>> >
>> > [[
>> > 5.1.  Establishing a Base URI
>> >
>> >   The term "relative" implies that a "base URI" exists against which
>> >   the relative reference is applied.  Aside from fragment-only
>> >   references (Section 4.4), relative references are only usable when a
>> >   base URI is known.
>> > ]]
>>
>> And indeed they are: when you POST content the server will know what
>> URIs the relative ones are referring to, once he has created the resource.
>>
>> IIUC, the server will know but the producer of the RDF serialization does
> not. So what is effectively serialized is not actually RDF but a pseudo RDF
> supporting relative URIs that can only be serialized in those RDF
> serializations implicitly supporting this. I think not letting the client
> deal with the RDF on the abstract syntax level is quite a severe limitation.
>
> Cheers,
> Reto
>
>