W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > April to June 2007

xml:base (was Re: IRI meets RDF meets HTTP redirect)

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:31:54 -0400
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org, www-international@w3.org
Message-Id: <20070418153154.4A5B34F04E@homer.w3.org>


> I am unclear as to what is the correct reading as an RDF graph of a
> particular representation retrived from the Web.
...

> <rdf:RDF
>    xmlns:rdf=3D'http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#'
>    xmlns:rdfs=3D'http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#'
>     >
> 
>    <rdf:Description rdf:about=3D"#r">

I don't know the answer to your question, by am I right in thinking that
authors can avoid this dilemma by including an xml:base?  I think a good
practice is to include xml:base whenever the graph is essentially data
instead of embedded metadata.  That is, authors should think about the
case where their served respresentation is saved-to-disk and/or
republished at another address by a third party.  When that happens,
will the resulting document be more truthful with or without an xml:base
set to the original location?  For example, a foaf file probably should
have an xml:base and the metadata embedded in a jpeg file, talking about
the image, probably should not.

(I'm sorry if this is covered in some spec that I've not yet heard
about.)

Of course, if you *want* the base end with "résumé" you're out of luck,
since XML Base [1] says you can only use a URI.   But at least you've
avoided the dilemma.

     -- Sandro

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:31:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:17:13 GMT