W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > May 2006

Re: [Fwd: on HTTP in RDF]

From: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 12:50:29 +0200
Message-ID: <4472E8F5.8000405@fit.fraunhofer.de>
To: public-wai-ert@w3.org

Dan Connolly wrote:

> In this case, I doubt the editors meant what this says:
> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&http-ns;allow">
>  <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Allow</rdfs:label>
>  <rdfs:comment>The Allow header</rdfs:comment>
>  <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="&http-ns;header"/>
>  <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&http-ns;Request"/>
>  <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&http-ns;Response"/>
> </rdf:Property>
> that says that everything with an allow property is both a Request
> _and_ a Response. See
> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-domain-and-range

Hmm, I was not aware of this :-| Is there a way to specify that the 
allow propery can appear in both Request and Response? Is this necessary 
to specify?

> Hmm... I also see http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/HTTP/WD-RFC822-in-RDF-20060216 ;
> I don't care for the name/value approach there.

Which is what we need for unknown fields. So at least the name/value 
part is still needed. I don't think we will need the specific fields in 
the current draft of RFC822-in-RDF. I just added them forcompleteness. 
Should I delete them?

Johannes Koch - Competence Center BIKA
Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology (FIT.LIFE)
Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany
Phone: +49-2241-142628
Received on Tuesday, 23 May 2006 10:51:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:54 UTC