On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 29 Apr 2011, at 19:50, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not personally keen on this absolute IRI restriction. I included
> > it in this proposal in order to minimize the permutations being
> > examined at once ("minimal change"). For usability, I find
> > Data:
> > <s> <p> <o> .
> > Query:
> > ASK { ?s <p> ?o }
> >
> > very intuitive when you don't have to specifically call out a base
> > URI. Using IRI references instead of IRIs would permit the above query
> > to work in e.g. Jena (which currently presumes absolute IRIs).
> >
>
Is there a need for this outside the context of illustrating some simple
test data and queries?
>
> Do you mean that the RDF concepts should allow relative URI-s (well, IRI-s)
> in Graphs? That might be a pretty major change in RDF; what would
> dereferencing mean? Where would the base come from? Would two graphs with
> different bases but otherwise identical relative IRI-s be identical? Etc...
>
> Do we have a convincing use case to engage into this?
>
I agree -- allowing relative IRIs in the abstract syntax is a potentially
far-reaching change which I am personally opposed to. I think it's worth
sacrificing a little bit of convenience on the part of a document author in
order to gain the consistency that absolute IRIs provide in terms of
preserving the meaning of a graph.
-Alex
>
> Ivan
Received on Monday, 2 May 2011 15:45:15 UTC