W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2011

Re: Absolute IRIs (Was: Re: IRI guidance)

From: Alex Hall <alexhall@revelytix.com>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 11:44:47 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTinbhzJd5OC3-i3XnLFHG_gWvN5EFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, "nathan@webr3.org" <nathan@webr3.org>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
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.


> Ivan
Received on Monday, 2 May 2011 15:45:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:06 UTC