- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:29:10 +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 5:21 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> How is this different for a RDF *property*? (Not a subject or object!) > > Properties can used in the subject or object position, so I'm not sure > what your question means. If you meant to say predicate, I'm even more > unsure of what you mean. I meant predicates (I keep saying "properties" because of my WebDAV background :-). >> So is Dublin Core violating WebArch, and breaking RDF? > > Yes, and that's dealt with here: > > “As PURL servers use a 302 response code and there is currently no way > to configure them to use 303 response codes, existing vocabularies > with http://purl.org slash namespaces servers do not strictly conform > to the current TAG recommendations.” > — http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/#purls But DC is not using PURL, so this is just a similar problem. That being said: if something as widely used as DC (it is, isn't it) violates the principle, what *effect* does it have? In practice? >> 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. > > That is partly why I advise to use reversed domain names. I think URIs as identifiers work just fine. What seems to be problematic os the "Information Resource" distinction. > Do you have a reference to the TAG and IANA discussion, by the way? It > might be useful not just for me but for others following the current > thread, if there be such people. See around <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jan/0114.html>. BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 17 April 2009 17:30:03 UTC