- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 17:08:20 -0500
- To: public-linked-json@w3.org
- Message-ID: <511C0ED4.8080503@openlinksw.com>
On 2/13/13 2:50 PM, Manu Sporny wrote: > We had a conversation about using auto-generated fragment identifiers > for graph names during the call today. We have found a problem with > that solution - it's incompatible with RDF when the document doesn't > have a base IRI. In the case of the Web Payments work, the document > MUST NOT have a base IRI because the message is transient. Note the following, it isn't consistent with the statement above: [Wed 12:34] <cygri> manu, it is valid, however the document has an implicit base in this case .... [Wed 12:41] <cygri> classic n-triples doesn't have relative IRIs, so you need to write out the full ones. we talked about changing that but i'm not sure where that went, so am not sure about n-quads [Wed 12:41] <cygri> however in turtle and rdf/xml you can simply write relative IRIs in your doc, and not specify a base, and it will work .... [Wed 12:42] <cygri> i'm not sure what it means when you say, "if we do that, all of RDF has to use that" ..... [Wed 12:43] <cygri> gkellogg, the RDF data model requires IRIs to be absolute [Wed 12:43] <cygri> but that doesn't mean they have to be absolute in surface syntaxes [Wed 12:43] <cygri> it means if you want to know what RDF graph exactly it is, you need a base -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 22:08:43 UTC