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

On 3/27/14 4:42 PM, Reto Gmür wrote:
>
>>
>
>     If you consider RFC5995 ( Using POST to Add Members to WebDAV )
>     http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5995
>     you need only consider that it does not say anything about
>     relative URIs to understand
>     that because it says nothing it does exactly what we are
>     proposing. If you were to use
>     a RFC5995 compliant server to POST some Turtle with relative URIs
>     in it, then you'd
>     get exactly the LDP intended result. A turtle document that was
>     posted with a <> URI would refer
>     to the document created.
>
> Granted. The same happens if you send an email with text/turtle 
> content-type. Still, a bit far fetched to see this use as the intended 
> design or even as to see  an established design pattern in that, imho.

This is an established design pattern, that's poorly understood. 
Relative URIs are really a major route to taking a lot of confusion and 
tedium out of Linked Data exploitation.



-- 

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