- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:38:04 -0500
- To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Cc: nathan@webr3.org, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@W3.ORG>
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 13:08 +0000, Dave Reynolds wrote: [ . . . ] > It seems to me that this is primarily a issue with publishing, and a > little about being sensible about how you pass on links. If I'm going to > put up some linked data I should mint normalized URIs; I should use the > same spelling of the URIs throughout my data; I'll make sure those URIs > dereference and that the data that comes back is stable and useful. If > someone else refers to my resources using an aliased URI (such as a > different case for the protocol) and makes statements about those > aliases then they have simply made a mistake. > > To make sure that dereference returns what I expect, independent of > aliasing, then I should publish data with explicit base URIs (or just > absolute URIs). Publishing with relative URIs and no base is a recipe > for having your data look different from different places. Just don't do > it. This advice sounds like an excellent candidate for publication in a best practices document. And if it is merely best practice guidance, perhaps that *is* something that the new RDF working group could address. -- David Booth, Ph.D. http://dbooth.org/ Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of his employer.
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2011 14:38:33 UTC