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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:29:10 +0200
Message-ID: <49E8BC66.9030209@gmx.de>
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@miscoranda.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Sean B. Palmer wrote:
> 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.

I meant predicates (I keep saying "properties" because of my WebDAV 
background :-).

>> 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

But DC is not using PURL, so this is just a similar problem.

That being said: if something as widely used as DC (it is, isn't it) 
violates the principle, what *effect* does it have? In practice?

>> 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.

I think URIs as identifiers work just fine. What seems to be problematic 
os the "Information Resource" distinction.

> 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.

See around <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jan/0114.html>.

BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 17 April 2009 17:30:03 GMT

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