W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2008

Re: Uniform access to descriptions

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:55:01 -0400
Message-Id: <2CD89955-8F23-4A63-A7A8-5D148F1BFB23@creativecommons.org>
Cc: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>


On Mar 20, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> If Aunt Tillie wants to participate in the Semantic Web as a  
> publisher, then she can simply deploy RDF documents that use hash  
> URIs. That's not (much) harder than deploying HTML. Aunt Tillie  
> doesn't need 303 redirects.

Umm... I think this is off topic (not your fault, Richard) - 303 was  
only raised as a point of comparison. The issue is how difficult will  
it be for Aunt Tillie to provide document metadata (links, etc.), in  
those cases where that metadata can't or shouldn't live inside the  
document (representation?) itself. This question figures into  
willingness to admit any particular solution.

As always I assume that a solution that works for metadata will work  
for descriptions of arbitrary things, which is why I am OK with  
saying "metadata" instead of "description". You are right that the  
non-document case is covered by # as well as 303, but that's not the  
challenging case in this discussion.

Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 20 March 2008 16:56:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:53 GMT