David Booth wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 13:08 +0000, Dave Reynolds wrote:
[ . . . ]
It seems to me that this is primarily a issue with publishing, and a
little about being sensible about how you pass on links. If I'm going to
put up some linked data I should mint normalized URIs; I should use the
same spelling of the URIs throughout my data; I'll make sure those URIs
dereference and that the data that comes back is stable and useful. If
someone else refers to my resources using an aliased URI (such as a
different case for the protocol) and makes statements about those
aliases then they have simply made a mistake.
To make sure that dereference returns what I expect, independent of
aliasing, then I should publish data with explicit base URIs (or just
absolute URIs). Publishing with relative URIs and no base is a recipe
for having your data look different from different places. Just don't do
it.
This advice sounds like an excellent candidate for publication in a best
practices document. And if it is merely best practice guidance, perhaps
that *is* something that the new RDF working group could address.
+1 from me, address at the publishing phase, allow at the consuming
phase, keep comparison simple.
