- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 10:07:28 -0400
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
-1 on this from me. I have nothing against saying that it is good practice under some conditions, but *SHOULD* is quite a strong thing to say. peter On 11/01/2012 09:42 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 11/1/12 9:33 AM, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> RDF-ISSUE-103 (dereferenceable-iris): Make dereferenceable IRIs a SHOULD in >> RDF Concepts [RDF Concepts] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/103 >> >> Raised by: Markus Lanthaler >> On product: RDF Concepts >> >> Lately there haven been quite some discussions about what formats are valid >> Linked Data. Everyone agreed that at least RDF is certainly one of them. >> Nevertheless, nowhere in RDF Concepts there's a normative statement that >> IRIs SHOULD be dereferenceable which is the core principle of Linked Data. >> The only statement I found about this is >> >> "A good way of communicating the intended referent to the world is to set >> up the IRI so that it dereferences[WEBARCH] to such a document." >> >> I would thus like to propose that a normative statement like the following >> is added to RDF Concepts: >> >> "When deferenced, IRIs SHOULD return an RDF Document that describes the >> denoted resource by means of RDF statements." >> >> >> >> >> > > Yes! > > Then at the very least, you have much clearer sense of how RDF and Linked > Data are related i.e., RDF enables you create Linked Data. Much better than > the quantum leap to the distorted realm of RDF and Linked Data isomorphism. >
Received on Thursday, 1 November 2012 14:08:05 UTC