- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 21:01:47 +0100
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- CC: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 01/04/11 20:21, Nathan wrote: > Andy Seaborne wrote: >> On 01/04/11 20:06, Nathan wrote: >>> Andy Seaborne wrote: >>>> Are there examples of real worlds data that uses relative IRIs in >>>> N-triples? If not, we could decide that theer is no base processing in >>>> RDF-triples, absolute IRIs only. >>> >>> How can we have @base processing if there are no directives or @base >>> definitions? I'd strongly suggest we keep this to *IRI*s only. >> >> The base is also set by where the file is read from. > > Indeed, reliably though? It's standard dereferencing. For HTTP, it's well defined. > for instance taking in to account the file > being sent by email, being part of a zip archive, being in the message > body of a PUT HTTP request, being in the body of a GET HTTP response > with a Content-Location which differs from the effective request URI? > > Personally, I'd quite like that can of worms left closed for RDF-Triples :) I agree - I'm not arguing for relative references (which do include the #frag) - I'm pointing out that removing @base does not preclude relative IRIs and base processing. Andy > > Best, > > Nathan >
Received on Friday, 1 April 2011 20:02:27 UTC