RE: Random JSON-LD requests for the future: @job & slash-rooted paths

On Monday, March 10, 2014 5:27 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On 03/10/2014 12:18 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> > On Monday, March 10, 2014 3:13 PM, Sandro Hawke
> >> On 03/10/2014 09:58 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, March 08, 2014 8:13 PM, David Janes wrote:
> > [...]
> >>>> (2) "/" routed IRIs
> >>>>
> >>>> Instead of returning various @base relative IRIs as
> >>>> "../../../x/y/z",
> >>>> it would be nice if there was an option for just getting "/x/y/z".
> >>> Can't you achieve that by simply setting the base to the domain
> >>> instead of some directory? So, http://example.com/ instead of
> >>> http://example.com/a/directory/
> >> I'm not sure what you mean by "setting the base",
> > Expansion transforms everything to absolute IRIs. Compaction
> transforms
> > absolute IRIs to IRIs relative to the specified base. Thus, if you
> set the
> > base to the domain and not a subdirectory you'd get almost the same
> result.
> >
> >
> >> but whatever the base
> >> is, a relative URI of "/x/y/z" should have exactly the behavior I
> think
> >> David is asking for, just by the rules of Relative URI resolution.
> > Yeah, it's an absolute path instead of a relative one. If you have
> two
> > JSON-LD files in a directory that reference each other and move both
> of them
> > to a new directory, absolute-path IRIs break, relative paths don't.
> That's
> > why we preferred relative paths. That being said, implementations
> could
> > easily add a flag to produce absolute-paths instead of relative ones.
> 
> Makes sense.
> 
> Getting back to what David said...   He said he wanted to be able to do
> say "/x/y/z" not just "../../../x/y/z".

He said:

  Instead of returning various @base relative IRIs as "../../../x/y/z",
  it would be nice if there was an option for just getting "/x/y/z".

... which I interpreted as the result of an API call. 


>   So my point is that anywhere
> "../../../x/y/z" works, "/x/y/z" must as well, according to the URI
> spec.   In other words, he already has what he wants.    If the

Yep. It's of course legal JSON-LD


> software isn't giving him that, the software is broken. Or does JSON-LD
> somehow overriding the URI spec on this?

Nope. But the test suite expects relative path IRIs as result not
path-absolute ones. So all implementations do that and AFAIK none of them
offer a flag return path-absolute IRIs instead at the moment.


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Monday, 10 March 2014 17:14:37 UTC