- From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 12:52:32 +0100
- To: public-ldp@w3.org
- CC: Simeon Warner <simeon.warner@cornell.edu>
hello.
On 2015-03-04 12:43, Simeon Warner wrote:
> On 3/2/15 2:38 PM, Steve Speicher wrote:
>> I believe the intent was that the current registration of
>> "describedby" was limited to the definition in POWDER [1]. So we
>> clarified it within LDP. From what I recall, there was no need to
>> add any clarity to the definition of "describes" as it is
>> satisfactory as written for the needs of LDP.
"describedby" is *defined* by POWDER, but by no means limited to it. on
the contrary, it's defined very open-ended as link relations should be:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-powder-dr-20090901/#appD:
"Description: The relationship A 'describedby' B asserts that resource B
provides a description of resource A. There are no constraints on the
format or representation of either A or B, neither are there any further
constraints on either resource. "
so there really is no need to fork things. forking is always a risky
thing to do and thus should be avoided whenever possible.
cheers,
dret.
--
erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu - tel:+1-510-2061079 |
| UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool) |
| http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |
Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2015 11:53:01 UTC