- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 09:29:47 +0100
- To: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
- CC: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, SPARQL Working Group WG <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I was pointing out that there is another situation to consider under a heading of resolving relative references, which is relative URIs in the payload of the message. Concretely: If relative IRI <x> is in the payload for the request PUT /rdf-graphs/employees?graph=http://otherserver/consultant/56 what is the proposed resolved absolute IRI? If it's not http://otherserver/consultant/x then it's going to be quite confusing because the same message sent to different service endpoints but the same graph=IRI has different absolute IRIs in it. Andy On 17/05/2010 11:33 PM, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote: > I'm incorporating this into the current editor's version: > > On 3/11/10 6:47 AM, "Andy Seaborne"<andy.seaborne@talis.com> wrote: >> The other case is the base URI for the document received: >> PUT /rdf-graphs/employees?graph=http://otherserver/consultant/56 >> Host: example.com >> <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?> >> <rdf:RDF >> .... no base named .... >> </rdf:RDF> >> >> gets a base URI for the parsing of the RDF/XML document of >> http://otherserver/consultant/56 > > This seems like too strong an interpretation of "For a document that is > enclosed within another entity, such as a message or archive, the retrieval > context is that entity." I'm assuming that is the layer you used to justify > this? It is the identifier that is embedded not the serialization of the RDF > graph it identifies (indirectly). > > -- Chime
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 08:30:26 UTC