- From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 14:36:35 +0000
- To: Lars Heuer <heuer@semagia.com>
- Cc: public-lod@w3.org
On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 22:17 +0100, Lars Heuer wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> Even if I come from a slightly different camp (Topic Maps), I wonder
> if your proposal hasn't become reality already. Try to resolve
> rdf:type or rdfs:label: I think we agree that these resources describe
> abstract concepts and should not return 200 but 303. Both return 200.
Those are hash URIs, for example, the rdf:type expands to the URI:
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type
As it says [1] in the RDF specs:
""the RDF treatment of a fragment identifier allows it to indicate a
thing that is entirely external to the document, or even to the "shared
information space" known as the Web. That is, it can be a more general
idea, like some particular car or a mythical Unicorn""
So those are perfectly fine. Ian's proposal and the discussion here has
been entirely about URIs without fragment identifiers, so called "slash
URIs".
Dave
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-fragID - though that is
an Informative rather than Normative section of the concepts document.
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2010 14:37:12 UTC