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

RE: "Resource" (RDF vocabulary definitions)

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:22:51 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021125151555.02e998c0@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@virgilio.it>, "www-rdf-comments" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>

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.

Brian
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 10:21:24 GMT

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