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

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

From: Benja Fallenstein <b.fallenstein@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:43:51 +0100
Message-ID: <41AB9817.9050004@gmx.de>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
CC: "DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO)" <bob.ducharme@lexisnexis.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Dan Brickley wrote:
> 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.
> 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.

<garment webArchNitpickHat="on" speechAct:tongueInCheekFactor="quite">

In fact, it makes a lot of sense, since although the URI


could represent anything, intuitively it represents "the file 
apps/appliancemanagement/content/contents.rdf in the repository 
penzilla3" (a digital resource), and giving a list of revisions of the 
file seems like a perfectly reasonable representation of such a 
resource. Even with digital resources, representations do not have to be 
instances (copies) of (a version of) the resource; they can be anything 
the authority (web space owner) likes, and this particular type of 
representation seems perfectly useful.


(Leo Sauermann will get a fit if he reads it about people who solve 
theoretical problems instead of writing real code. But I think it's fun. 

- Benja
Received on Monday, 29 November 2004 21:44:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:54 UTC