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

Hello,

IP issues related to contributions from external parties are easier to 
track when these contributions are channeled through a separate list from 
the one used by the WG. This is what has led to the current set up. I 
understand that the lack of consistency on how this is done across W3C can 
be confusing.

Many if not all of the WG members are following this list. If you sent 
specific feedback or questions for which you expected a reply and didn't, 
please, point those out.

Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - LDP WG chair




From:   Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto@apache.org>
To:     public-ldp@w3.org, 
Date:   03/14/2013 12:41 AM
Subject:        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