Hi, > However, since the w3c name spaces treat HTTP and HTTPS as equivalent, this may not be a major concern. I don’t think that is correct, in RDF terms at least? > >> >> Regards, >> Frans >> >> Op ma 17 apr 2023 om 15:25 schreef Melvin Carvalho < >> melvincarvalho@gmail.com>: >> >>> As you are well aware, the "rdf:type" property is part of RDF Schema, >>> helping us specify the class or category to which a particular resource >>> belongs. The current URI for "rdf:type" is based on the HTTP protocol, but >>> as the web continues to evolve, many websites and schemas are transitioning >>> to HTTPS for increased security. >>> >>> For instance, I recall that Schema.org made the switch from HTTP to >>> HTTPS a while ago. This made me wonder about the future-proofing of >>> "rdf:type" and its continued relevance in the face of potential protocol >>> upgrades. >>> >>> Specifically, I have the following questions: >>> >>> 1. How future-proofed is "rdf:type" given its dependency on the HTTP >>> URI? >>> 2. What would be the potential implications if the "rdf:type" >>> property were to change from HTTP to HTTPS? >>> 3. Are there any possible steps that can be taken to mitigate this >>> change when working with the semantic web today. >>> >>> thoughts and guidance on this issue will be greatly appreciated. >>> >>> >>>
Received on Monday, 17 April 2023 16:17:12 UTC