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

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

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 19:23:03 +0100
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Reto Gmür <reto@wymiwyg.com>, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Soiland-Reyes Stian <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, "public-ldp@w3.org" <public-ldp@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CCE89C8C-C35A-4898-BDB5-37C8E12B4FBD@cyganiak.de>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>

On 31 Mar 2014, at 18:54, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
> Simple solution: make it clear that LDP is based on Turtle Notation. There are pros and cons to this approach (naturally), but being clear ultimately reduces confusion. Inferring that LDP is based on RDF, in this context, without the suggested clarification re., notation specificity, is just another case of RDF conflation (abstract and concrete syntaxes) and inevitable confusion.

Would it be insane to say that LDP (or at least its POST semantics for containers) is based on something else, let’s call it a “relative RDF graph”, which has the following properties:

- It is similar to an RDF graph
- But it may contain relative URIs
- It can be resolved against a base URI to yield a “normal” RDF graph
- It’s what we get when we parse a Turtle file that contains relative URIs without resolving them
- Relative RDF graphs cannot be stored in RDF stores, cannot be merged, cannot be reasoned over, etc.
- To do any of those things, it needs to be resolved against a base first.

Received on Monday, 31 March 2014 18:23:31 UTC

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