W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp@w3.org > March 2014

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

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 12:53:32 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+OuRR_eQ4YoKgu58QcZm4_dACWoB9LRc6odp0CFMfqrybfE=g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "henry.story@bblfish.net" <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Cc: Reto Gmür <reto@apache.org>, "public-ldp@w3.org" <public-ldp@w3.org>
Henry, all,

for the record, I have accepted the fact that the majority in the WG
disagrees with me on that point,
and although I haven't changed my mind about it, I am not suggesting to
make such an important change at this point of the process.


On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:23 PM, henry.story@bblfish.net <
henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:

>  On 26 Mar 2014, at 10:29, Reto Gmür <reto@apache.org> wrote:
>    You realize you're forcing developers of clients and servers to
> operate at a much lower level of abstraction than if LDP would be designed
> in term of exchanging RDF?
> You need to work at the appropriate level of abstraction.

Indeed, and the RDF *abstract* syntax seems more appropriate to me (and
apparently to Reto) than some of its concrete syntaxes.
(remember that N-Triple does not allow relative URIs)

>  I have implemented this, and so have others.

Nobody argued that it was impossible...

>  There are really a whole number of ways to get this done.

   The client cannot use a turtle serializer to create the request body.
> The client must generate the body by other means or modify the turtle
> created by a turtle serializer.
>  Jena, Sesame and most other serialisers I have seen allow you to take a
> graph, and serialise it to a relative graph, by specifying a base URL.

Of course they do, but you can not rely on that.
Consider the following graph :

<http://example.org/a> a <http://example.org/B> ;
    <http://example.org/b> <http://example.org/c>.

When I serialize it in XML with RDFLib, specifying "http://example.org/" as
the base URI, I get

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
  <ns1:D rdf:about="a">
    <ns1:b rdf:resource="c"/>

You can see that the base URI still appears in the result (as a namespace

In my opinion this is not a bug. The base URI you provide to the serializer
is just a hint, it does not mandate that this URI is completely absent from
the resulting serialization.

So I concur with Reto ; LDP as it is specifies prevent the client to rely
on standard serializers, which is a pain in the arm.
Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2014 11:54:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:16:37 UTC