- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 07:31:56 -0500
- To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- CC: guha@alpiri.com, Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sergey Melnik wrote: > > Currently, the concept of relative URIs is present in the M&S 1.0 > serialization syntax only, and is not reflected in the model in any way. > That is, relative URIs is a just another "abbreviation feature" of the > M&S syntax, and I'd like to emphasize that in the revised spec to avoid > misconceptions. Very well. > As abbreviation features, relative URIs have nothing to > do with the fragment IDs described in > http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Model.html#Fragement (for example, a > fragment ID in an RDF document does *not* refer to a portion of this > document). I disagree, but I don't think this point is directly relevant to this issue. > Therefore, IMO the axioms and benefits summarized by TimBL > for HTML at above link do not seem to hold in the RDF world. > > I feel strongly about not using relative URIs, especially given the > parsing/editing complication (see prev. postings in this thread), and > the problems associated with moving RDF documents from one location to > another. However, I think keeping cleaned-up rdf:ID, rdf:about and > relative URIs in the revised M&S syntax is essential for backward > compatibility and is the least bloody compromise (sigh...) I'd just > suggest to word it so the developers understand the pros and cons. I'm happy to point out the pros and cons of using relative URIs. But I would not be happy characterizing them as some sort of "for backwards compatibility" feature, to be removed at some later date. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Sunday, 24 June 2001 08:33:15 UTC