- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:21:22 +0200
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@miscoranda.com>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Sean B. Palmer wrote: > On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> However, allowing an XML namespace to be an Information Resource, >> but disallowing that for a RDF property still looks very arbitrary to me. > > Well the idea is that XML namespaces are in a sense apart from the > web. You can see this in the fact that an XML namespace URI doesn't > have to resolve to anything. It can return a 404 over HTTP for > example, and yet you can still use it as an XML namespace. How is this different for a RDF *property*? (Not a subject or object!) > When RDF wanted to use URIs to identify all sorts of things, an > attempt was made to integrate it properly with the web and not keep it > in some sense separate like XML namespaces. This is what the TAG > ruling that I cited is all about. I understand that the "303 hack" is useful for the things RDF makes statements *about* -- but that's different from the RDF properties, isn't it? OK, let's test. As example, got the latest tr.rdf from <http://www.w3.org/2002/01/tr-automation/tr.rdf>, and tried Dublin Core's dc:date as example. The prefix dc is mapped to "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/". Retrieving "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/date" yields a 302 redirect. So is Dublin Core violating WebArch, and breaking RDF? > ... > If the IANA want their registered relation type URIs to be compatible > with RDF, they'll have to make them return 303s too. > .. Still not convinced that there *is* an incompatibility. BTW, the TAG tried to convince IANA of this several months ago, and apparently didn't succeed. I'm not saying that the TAG is right and IANA is wrong, but this shows that the whole concept does not yet work in practice. > ... BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 17 April 2009 16:22:12 UTC