Re: Problem with auto-generated fragment IDs for graph names

On 2/13/13 2:50 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> We had a conversation about using auto-generated fragment identifiers
> for graph names during the call today. We have found a problem with
> that solution - it's incompatible with RDF when the document doesn't
> have a base IRI. In the case of the Web Payments work, the document
> MUST NOT have a base IRI because the message is transient.
Note the following, it isn't consistent with the statement above:

[Wed 12:34] <cygri> manu, it is valid, however the document has an
implicit base in this case

....

[Wed 12:41] <cygri> classic n-triples doesn't have relative IRIs, so you
need to write out the full ones. we talked about changing that but i'm
not sure where that went, so am not sure about n-quads

[Wed 12:41] <cygri> however in turtle and rdf/xml you can simply write
relative IRIs in your doc, and not specify a base, and it will work

....

[Wed 12:42] <cygri> i'm not sure what it means when you say, "if we do
that, all of RDF has to use that"

.....

[Wed 12:43] <cygri> gkellogg, the RDF data model requires IRIs to be
absolute
[Wed 12:43] <cygri> but that doesn't mean they have to be absolute in
surface syntaxes
[Wed 12:43] <cygri> it means if you want to know what RDF graph exactly
it is, you need a base



-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen