Re: Section 5.4.8 null relative URI

Hi James,

Thank you for your comment.  This issue is being formally tracked here:
  https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/54

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:16:20 -0400, James Leigh wrote:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-ldp-20130307/#http-post-1 says:
>         5.4.8 In RDF representations, LDPC servers must interpret the
>         null relative URI for the subject of triples in the LDPR
>         representation in the request entity body as referring to the
>         entity in the request body. Commonly, that entity is the model
>         for the “to be created” LDPR, so triples whose subject is the
>         null relative URI will usually result in triples in the created
>         resource whose subject is the created resource.
> 
> According to the above the term <> in turtle should be replaced with the
> to-be-created URI. However, the term <#adr> would still be resolved
> against the base URI of the document (either in the @base directive,
> Content-Location, or the request-uri). This will be hard to implement as
> most Turtle parsers do not expose the relative lexical term used in the
> document, but often only the absolute URI.
> 
> In Callimachus we experimented with overriding the base URI while
> parsing, but that proved problematic as many turtle writers don't allow
> explicit term representations and it prevented the use of general
> purpose entity handling (on either client or server). In the end we
> realized that by overriding the base URI we were essentially /forking/
> Turtle and only parsers/writers that were aware of this could be trusted
> preserve the null relative URI.
> 
> Callimachus now requires the client to create a URI and use it in the
> RDF document. However, the server may end up substituting the primary
> URI with a canonical variant. I suggest the LDP spec adopt a similar
> approach.

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood