Re: rel=type or rel=profile

On Jan 15, 2014 7:56 PM, "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/15/14 10:06 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>>
>> In short: the argument that rdf:type is problematic does not hold.
>
> +1
>
> rdf:type is only problematic if we aren't using RDF [1] at all. We are
either using RDF or we aren't.

We are, or at least were, taking about  protocol headers, i.e. HTTP, not
RDF. The convention in HTTP is to use rel=profile for labeling the
interaction model.

> [1] http://bit.ly/1m5Ucgv -- Resource Description Framework (RDF).
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>
>