- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:02:24 -0400
- To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <51535050.5050901@openlinksw.com>
On 3/27/13 2:52 PM, Wilde, Erik wrote: > in this particular case, i would expect the content to be provenance > statements in RDF, and a client POSTing such a resource would use the > PROV-DM vocabulary, for example informing the pingback container that it > just used something > (http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-prov-dm-20130312/#term-Usage). Assuming I am accurately processing the statement above. Here's a "Devil's advocate" style question: Why are vocabularies (without any detailed mime types and hypermedia interaction model docs) acceptable in this RDF model based usecase scenario? -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Wednesday, 27 March 2013 20:02:51 UTC