At 14:53 25/11/2002 +0100, Danny Ayers wrote: [...] >Sorry Brian, I'm a little confused, could you just please clarify - > >irrespective of the mime-type of the document containing > ><rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/something#foo"> > >the interpretation of http://example.org/something#foo here will be the >(opaque) RDF interpretation if the mime-type of http://example.org/something >is application/rdf+xml, >but if the mime-type of http://example.org/something was text/html then this >would likely be interpreted as an element <a name="foo"> in >http://example.org/something > >ok so far? No. Wrong. In <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/something#foo"> RDF defines the URI to refer to whatever a document of type application/rdf-xml would define it to mean. RDF defines that, irrespective of the mime-type of the document it is contained in. The point here is that there is no single mime-type for http://example.org/something. In general, that URI does not denote a representation with a specific mime-type. Now lets consider a URI that does refer specifically to that representation: <rdf:Description rdf:about="rep:text/html:http://example.org/something#foo"> then the RDF denotation of that uriref is exactly the same as the html one. BrianReceived on Monday, 25 November 2002 10:21:24 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 18:22:15 GMT