Re: rel=type or rel=profile

On 1/16/14 7:00 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>
> On Jan 15, 2014 7:56 PM, "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com 
> <mailto: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).
>

Yes, but HTTP protocol response headers, <head/> sections in HTML etc... 
are still mechanisms for translating relations. Thus, wherever (or 
however) you express an rdf:type relation it has to have meaning -- 
hence my viewpoint about whether we are using RDF semantics or not :-)

-- 

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