W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > January 2011

Re: Semantics of rdfs:seeAlso (Was: Is it best practices to use a rdfs:seeAlso link to a potentially multimegabyte PDF?)

From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 23:32:56 +0100
Cc: <john.nj.davies@bt.com> <john.nj.davies@bt.com>, <david@dbooth.org>, <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F1E77B4C-485A-458D-A3BF-9EF5E44C835C@ebusiness-unibw.org>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>

First: Thanks for the kind clarification!

>> In parallel, we can discourage people to use rdfs:seeAlso to point  
>> to non-RDF resources in the future. It can easily be substituted by  
>> foaf:depiction for images and foaf:page for HTML resources without  
>> RDFa.
> Yes, exactly.

FYI: The W3C HTTP headers "ontology" at


uses rdfs:isDefinedBy to point to non-RDF resources, e.g. RFCs in  
plain text:

<rdf:Description rdf:about="#content-encoding">
<rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt 
<dc:description xml:lang="en">The Content-Encoding header</ 
<dc:title xml:lang="en">Content-Encoding</dc:title>
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2006/http#HeaderName"/>

Since rdfs:isDefinedBy is a subproperty of rdfs:seeAlso, this may also  
clash with existing FOAF client code, unless the lack of inferencing  
in a given environment isolates the problem.

The same holds also for


If there is agreement to avoid rdfs:seeAlso for non-RDF resources, we  
should also avoid rdfs:isDefinedBy.

Received on Monday, 17 January 2011 22:33:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:11 UTC