- From: Vasiliy Faronov <vfaronov@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:43:35 +0300
- To: Phil Archer <phil.archer@talis.com>
- Cc: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, nathan@webr3.org, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Peter DeVries <pete.devries@gmail.com>, public-lod@w3.org
On Чтв, 2011-01-13 at 12:32 +0000, Phil Archer wrote: > What I'm concerned about is the implication that, S rdfs:seeAlso O > implies that O is RDF that somehow doesn't need to be tested before > you throw it at a parser. That seems dangerous at best. I fully agree, and therefore we need other means of telling apart links to useful (in our context, RDF) data from non-useful (non-RDF). You propose, as far as I understand, that standard HTTP conneg is sufficient for this, but to me it seems quite limited. On the other hand, RDF itself allows for this sort of hints to be added very easily. All it takes is a common vocabulary that both publishers and consumers would understand and agree to. -- Vasiliy Faronov
Received on Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:44:09 UTC