W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2002

RE: "Resource" (RDF vocabulary definitions)

From: Chris Catton <chris.catton@btopenworld.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 18:59:33 -0000
To: <seth@robustai.net>
Cc: "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OKEMLMGGGDAEEGEAKOBHOEMGCEAA.chris.catton@btopenworld.com>


Seth Russell wrote:
	> big snips throughout ..>
>  Perhaps the solution is for ExampleOrg to not use
> the same fragments in their web pages as they do in their rdf documents
> and/or for you not to talk about other people's HTML fragments in your
> RDF.
>

But isn't this one of the main functions of RDF?

> >Second, I cannot say anything in rdf about a definition in rdf
> (such as 'the
> >comment about the class defined at http://example.org/#foo contains an
> >error').
> >
> Sure you can:
>
> _a:1  rdf:type rdf:Statement.
> _a:1  rdf:subject  <http://example.org/#foo>.
> _a:1  rdf:predicate rdf:comment.
> _a:1  rdf:object "This is a great klass".
> _a:1  ex:Contains  ex:SpellingError
>

doh - yes of course :-) - and your explanation of URI+FRAG is what I
actually meant to say, so no argument here either.

But when you say
>Well let's face it,  RDF is kind of expanding what webmasters normally
>think of as just an HTML fragment.   Hey, get over it !.

it's not the expansion I have a problem with, it's whether or not we have a
language we can use to describe the expanded universe.

> I think the party line here is that the mime type of the document gets
> to define what the fragment means.  Since RDF is supposed to be served
> with application/rdf+xml, then it can define the fragment differently
> than text/html.

Does this mean that if I represent a graph in rdf/xml inside an html
document by putting some triples inside rdf tags it has a completely
different meaning to a graph expressed in exactly the same way but served as
an .rdf document?


Chris
Received on Saturday, 23 November 2002 14:41:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT