W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2004

Re: .rdf extension on non-RDF CVS log files?

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:41:16 -0500
To: "DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO)" <bob.ducharme@lexisnexis.com>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <20041129174116.GE20326@homer.w3.org>

* DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO) <bob.ducharme@lexisnexis.com> [2004-11-29 12:16-0500]
> Thanks. Do you know if Resource Description Framework plays any role in the
> CVS log files, or did the people doing those, like the ReDIF folk, pick an
> extension of "rdf" for some unrelated reason? 

That's an oddity of CVSWeb. You're looking at a generated HTML page that 
is _about_ some (yes, typically W3C RDF/XML) document that's in a CVS 
repository. If you hit the 'revision 1.1' or whatever link, you'll get 
an HTMLization of the content, plus navbar stuff. If you hit download,
you'll get the actual RDF.

http://cvs2.oeone.com/index.cgi/penzilla3/apps/appliancemanagement/content/contents.rdf

http://cvs2.oeone.com/index.cgi/penzilla3/apps/appliancemanagement/content/contents.rdf?rev=1.9&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup

http://cvs2.oeone.com/index.cgi/~checkout~/penzilla3/apps/appliancemanagement/content/contents.rdf?rev=1.9

In fact CVSWeb isn't doing anything wrong, assuming they're sending 
correct content-type headers. People can choose to end their URIs in
whatever characters they prefer. But it is a little counter-intuitive.

That last URL parses as RDF using http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator
although there are some warnings w.r.t. RDFCore's namespace prefixing
decision ('rdf:about' and 'rdf:resource' vs just 'about' and 'resource'). 
They're Mozilla Chrome files, and Moz's RDF implementation is showing its age.

Dan
Received on Monday, 29 November 2004 17:41:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:57 UTC