- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:33:25 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8107 --- Comment #4 from John Giannandrea <jg@metaweb.com> 2009-10-28 06:33:25 --- There is no argument that if the itemtype is defined then the itemid is interpreted in that scope. My point is that if there is no itemtype then itemid can still be meaningful. Search engines, like google, can make sense of these "strong identifiers" even if they are in multiple domains or ranges. Another way of saying this is that there is an implicit vocabulary of "topics" or "concepts" that sites like wikipedia, dbpedia and freebase expose as URIs. perhaps 1/3 of these topics have no known type. The reason Im filing the bug is that "we dont know" what people will do and proscribing that one should never use an itemid without an itemtype seems to have no rationale. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 06:33:27 UTC