W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > February 2006

Re: [ALL] RDF/A Primer Version

From: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 00:03:54 -0500
Message-Id: <173BAF49-126C-4DCA-B598-27D9B885CA20@mit.edu>
Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, "SWBPD list" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, "public-rdf-in-xhtml task force" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>


On Feb 1, 2006, at 12:58 PM, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote:

> I think Ben may have been a bit imprecise above.  According to my read
> of the WebArch and httpRange-14 decision, if http://example.com/foo
> resolves to an XHTML document, then the resource that
> http://example.com/foo#bar identifies *is* a location within an HTML
> document.  AFAIK this may not preclude it from *also* being a  
> member of
> some other class.

Now I'm very confused.

I thought we were discussing whether a resource that *might* be an  
HTML document *could* also be a non-information resource, say a  
person. Let's take a precise example.

DanC's FOAF Person URI is <http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/#me>,  
but <http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/> returns HTML, which makes  
<http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/#me> a (potential) HTML element.

DBooth, I thought you were saying that this is probably a bad thing,  
assuming HTMLElement subclasses InformationResource, etc...

Did I misunderstand?

If DanC's setup is okay by the TAG, then I *think* that means that a  
secondary resource can be a non-information resource, even when its  
primary resource is an information resource. Someone correct me if  
I've lost it.

-Ben
Received on Friday, 3 February 2006 05:04:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:20 UTC