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

Re: "the main thing described by this document" (was lcsh.info RDFa SKOS and content negotiation - use of RDF-style # IDs in RDFa?

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:42:20 +0200
Message-ID: <48E9F99C.8040301@danbri.org>
To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Cc: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>

Steven Pemberton wrote:
>> I was wondering whether we might also sneak in a common symbol 
>> '#123412341234' (or something else obscure) meaning "the main thing 
>> described by this document", so that this common case could proceed 
>> without risk of unintended clashes (except by those who use that 
>> hard-to-guess symbol).
> 
> Ugh ugh ugh!
> 
> You have suddenly set the burner under my "willingness to argue for a 
> pto: URI scheme" a notch higher! Two notches!

Mission accomplished ;)

> I absolutely support an easy way to say "the main thing described by 
> this document", a) since it is such an important and frequent use case, 
> b) authoring it should be easy, and c) I understood at a talk at XTech 
> that a lot of people are already doing this wrong.
> 
> But please, please, if we're going to do it, let's do it cleanly, and 
> not with a hack!

OK. How about picking things up around ttdb, 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001May/0327.html etc.

My main concern there is with the date index. It is definitely useful, 
...but I'd like also to be able to encourage non-datestamped usage, 
particularly for documents whose maintainers make a respectable-looking 
commitment not to alter them. The dates make work harder for aggregators 
to find out when two URIs actually are talking about the same entity, 
... and since that's what we're setting out to make easier, I think 
sometimes the risk of using a smaller set of identifiers is going to be 
worth it.

http://larry.masinter.net/duri.html "This Internet-Draft will expire on 
October 16, 2004."

Anyone know if there are plans to ressurect this?

For RDFa usage, relative URIs might be an issue to spend time on, if we 
want to embed RDFa claims about 'the thing described by' the current 
page, without including its full http://etc URI.

Having a way of mixing in 'the thing that has this value of this 
property' identification would also be great...

cheers,

Dan

--
http://danbri.org/

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu#The_Call_of_Cthulhu
Received on Monday, 6 October 2008 11:43:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:07 GMT