- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 19:19:48 -0400
- To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <51A29894.30006@openlinksw.com>
On 5/26/13 6:17 PM, David Booth wrote: > > I'm very surprised to hear you say that a relative @base URI would be > legal. I don't think that should be allowed. That seems too > mysterious and error prone to me. It is legal in an expression oriented RDF notation. A notation that a processor would use to encode actual RDF graph serialization. The expression of an RDF graph (g-text) and its serialization (g-snap) are distinct things. I've been trying to bring attention to this very important distinction for a while now. Sandro pretty much brought attention to this via the g-box, g-text, and g-snap distinctions thread last year (or even earlier). We have to separate these things so we can speak about RDF to folks without confusing them and generating more bad-will etc.. A Turtle document resides in a g-box. The document is comprised of content i.e., g-text (expression of a graph) An actual RDF graph can be matrialized from g-text as a g-snap (actual Relations graph manifestation). -- 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 Sunday, 26 May 2013 23:20:16 UTC