Re: rel=type or rel=profile, issue 92

last one, i promise...

On 2014-01-18, 00:38 , "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>    Because RDF is supposed to enable you resolve these kinds of issues
>    i.e., by way of vocabulary/ontology and the relation semantics
>    expressed in the vocabulary/ontology.

well said. to me, the fundamental problem here is that outside of RDF,
many things one the web are contextual. finding a certain link relation in
one media type may mean something different from finding it in another.
that's because each media type will often make the precise definition of
what a hypermedia control means, found in the context of that media type.
as long as the semantics fit the link relation roughly, all is well.

that's kind of against RDF's idea that things have context-free meaning,
and this is why when reading the "profile" RFC (and many other link
relation RFCs, i would guess), it gives you the semantic heebie-jeebies.
most link relation registrations i am aware of very intentionally are
fuzzy, trying to be a good fit for a certain (loose) class of assertions
you might want to make, and leaving it to the context (the media type) to
define what they precisely mean in some context.

sadly, i cannot see a good way out of this, it's a bit of a different
approach of how to define semantics. i simply wouldn't spend too much time
with intense exegesis of RFCs; you are trying to read things into the spec
that intentionally have been left out of the spec.

cheers,

dret.

Received on Monday, 20 January 2014 08:55:37 UTC