- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
- Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:23:28 +0000
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 05/02/2010 15:53, Steve Harris wrote: > On 5 Feb 2010, at 15:31, Andy Seaborne wrote: > >> This arose because of baseless RDF/XML and wanting to copy them from >> the their original URL to a harvesting store. >> >> What's the base URI when using SPARQL HTTP Update when using remote >> naming (?graph=) >> >> It looks to me like it's the whole of: >> >> http://server/service?graph=http://examples/myGraph > > FWIW, in 4store it's <http://examples/myGraph> in this example. In our > experiences this more matches user expectations with regard to relative > URIs. That's what I'd like it to be ... I don't think that HTTP allows it though :-( http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1808.txt 3. Establishing a Base URL .----------------------------------------------------------. | .----------------------------------------------------. | | | .----------------------------------------------. | | | | | .----------------------------------------. | | | | | | | (3.1) Base URL embedded in the | | | | | | | | document's content | | | | | | | `----------------------------------------' | | | | | | (3.2) Base URL of the encapsulating entity | | | | | | (message, document, or none). | | | | | `----------------------------------------------' | | | | (3.3) URL used to retrieve the entity | | | `----------------------------------------------------' | | (3.4) Base URL = "" (undefined) | `----------------------------------------------------------' RFC2068 had "Content-Base" http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2068.txt but that did not make it to 2616 [[ RFC 2616: 19.6.3 Content-Base was deleted from the specification: it was not implemented widely, and there is no simple, safe way to introduce it without a robust extension mechanism. In addition, it is used in a similar, but not identical fashion in MHTML [45]. ]] although having to set a header at all is not convenient. Andy > > Agreed that the draft should be clearer in this regard. > > - Steve >
Received on Friday, 5 February 2010 16:24:03 UTC