W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Review Comments for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@miscoranda.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:42:50 +0000
Message-ID: <b6bb4d890904170942q6cade140ye240406b01934edb@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> How is this different for a RDF *property*? (Not a subject or object!)

Properties can used in the subject or object position, so I'm not sure
what your question means. If you meant to say predicate, I'm even more
unsure of what you mean.

> So is Dublin Core violating WebArch, and breaking RDF?

Yes, and that's dealt with here:

“As PURL servers use a 302 response code and there is currently no way
to configure them to use 303 response codes, existing vocabularies
with http://purl.org slash namespaces servers do not strictly conform
to the current TAG recommendations.”
— http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/#purls

> I'm not saying that the TAG is right and IANA is wrong, but this
> shows that the whole concept does not yet work in practice.

That is partly why I advise to use reversed domain names.

Do you have a reference to the TAG and IANA discussion, by the way? It
might be useful not just for me but for others following the current
thread, if there be such people.

Kindest regards,

-- 
Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
Received on Friday, 17 April 2009 17:01:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:02 GMT