RE: Linking RDF

Murray Altheim wrote:
>
> I feel like I'm not making any progress here though in one idea, and
> that is that linking to "RDF" is almost like linking to "XML" -- one
> needs to specify what specific grammar of RDF is being served. Otherwise,
> the processor has no understanding of the semantics of the received RDF.

if you look back through the initial discussions on xml-dev as RDDL was
being created, you will see that I initially proposed putting the RDDL
resources in the XHTML head as links, much as is being proposed here.
Needless to say, I was convinced otherwise. Similary MIME types are not
always adequate to describe the linked resource type. This is the reason
behind describing a related resource by its "purpose" with respect to the
link and the "nature" of the related resource.

>
> I don't think there's a MIME type for Dublin Core, and of course there
> won't be for author-designed RDF types. So 'type' doesn't really work
> that well either. Ideally, a namespace URI (ironically) would probably
> be best, since that allows for author-designed RDF applications, and
> doesn't force anyone to use only those RDF applications approved by a
> specific body.

The nature or xlink:role is often the namespace of the root element of the
referenced resource.

-Jonathan