- From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 20:12:25 -0400
- To: "Murray Altheim" <altheim@eng.sun.com>, "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
- Cc: "Danny Ayers" <danny@panlanka.net>, "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
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
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2001 20:12:24 UTC