- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:41:50 +0000
- To: bnowack@semsol.com
- CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Benjamin Nowack wrote: > P.S. as I just saw Ian's comment on IRC[1]: > > This algorithm ignores non-RDF structures such as > > <div itemscope itemtype="http://example.com/"> > <span itemprop="a/b"/> > </div> > or > <div itemscope itemtype="http://example.com/a/"> > <span itemprop="b"/> > </div> > > because common RDF vocabularies simply don't use URI patterns > like "http://example.com/" or "http://example.com/a/" to > declare resource types. Maybe I'm missing something, but looking at this and some ensuing messages, you seem to be saying that URIs without fragments are not used as types in RDF. I think this isn't true. There is tendency towards using fragment identifiers on newly designed vocabularies, but many early vocabularies do use type URIs without fragment identifiers. FOAF Agent (http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Agent) is an example. #g
Received on Friday, 22 January 2010 20:45:03 UTC