- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:25:38 -0800
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Sandro Hawke wrote: >>Of course, this leads inevitably to the question of what is a useful >>representation for a site. The kinds of stuff that could go there could >>include robots info, language info, favicon.ico equivalent, RSS info, >>p3p info, etc etc etc. Unlike the RDDL issues we've been discussing, I >>see little requirement for human readability, so this feels like a >>natural for a small (but extensible) RDF vocabulary, who cares if it's >>ugly. The RDF assertions would mostly have as their subject the URI "", >>which works well in this case. -Tim > > But if you do that, then you can't distinguish between assertions > about the site and assertions about the site information document. > For instance, the site might have been created on one day and this > site-information RDF document might have been created on another. Is > the triple > <> dc:date "2003-02-27" > saying that the site was created today or that the meta-site > information page was created today? The resource is the *site*; so <> is talking about the site. I see no ambiguity. If you want to publish another URI for the RDF document as an RDF document, that's a different resource. -Tim
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 17:25:43 UTC