Re: Base URI in updates?

On 21/05/2010 2:13 PM, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
> On 5/21/10 4:45 AM, "Andy Seaborne"<>  wrote:
>> What we decide really does need explaining the counter intuitive nature
>> in the doc.
> Yes.
>> I'd like to find a way to make the graph URI the base even if that means
>> contorting things a little - after all, this 3rd party service/graph
>> naming we are using isn't the primary design space of REST anyway.
> True
>> I'd argue that the use of the graph=<abs URI>  creates a new URI used to
>> retrieve the entity.
> What if the new URI isn't resolvable? I.e.,
> PUT /rdf-graphs/employees?
> Host:
> <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
> <rdf:RDF
>   .... no base named ....
> </rdf:RDF>
> We can't say that was used to
> 'retrieve' anything.

"Retrieve" isn't the best word, I grant you, but it is the URI used to 
access the graph within the collection of grapgs addressible at, so not "retreive" as in 
GET but in an abstract sense.

The same is true for

GET /rdf-graphs/employees?

What word do you use to describe the action here of accessing ?

The choice of "retrieve" was motivated by the spirit, as I read it, of 
the text around 5.1.3:

    Note that
    if the retrieval was the result of a redirected request, the last URI
    used (i.e., the URI that resulted in the actual retrieval of the
    representation) is the base URI.

This does not directly apply but I think the intent is that the base URI 
is whatever was last in some access process.  This might be viewed as 
accessing an entity within a container.

Not ideal, but there is deployed experience using this and no 
contraindication that I know of so I'm minded to make it work by some 
means or other.

Maybe publishing, with a request for comments, is best and see what 
other opinions surface.


Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 10:20:55 UTC