- From: Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@semsol.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:51:09 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 22.01.2010 20:41:50, Graham Klyne wrote: >Benjamin Nowack wrote: >> P.S. as I just saw Ian's comment on IRC[1]: >> >> This algorithm ignores non-RDF structures such as >> >> <div itemscope itemtype="http://example.com/"> >> <span itemprop="a/b"/> >> </div> >> or >> <div itemscope itemtype="http://example.com/a/"> >> <span itemprop="b"/> >> </div> >> >> because common RDF vocabularies simply don't use URI patterns >> like "http://example.com/" or "http://example.com/a/" to >> declare resource types. > >Maybe I'm missing something yes, you do. We've been talking about both slash- and hash-URIs. Benji >, but looking at this and some ensuing messages, you >seem to be saying that URIs without fragments are not used as types in RDF. I >think this isn't true. There is tendency towards using fragment identifiers on >newly designed vocabularies, but many early vocabularies do use type URIs >without fragment identifiers. FOAF Agent (http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Agent) is >an example. > >#g >
Received on Monday, 25 January 2010 09:51:42 UTC