rel names vs URLs

This is only tangentially related to LDP.   I'm sending it here because 
we've thought/talked about this problem a bit.  I don't think it 
actually affects the LDP spec, although it might affect LDP users in 
some situations.

My particular use case is I want to use webmention with RDF data, but 
the webmention folks have no particular interest (I think) in giving me 
an RDF predicate URL for rel=webmention.     And I'd like to be able to 
put it in the data, not just in a Link header (for the same reason as 
the webmention spec allows it as <a rel="webmention"> not just in Link 
headers.

So, I'm wondering about just declaring that http://www.w3.org/ns/rel#X 
means the HTTP link relation X.   As I understand Web Architecture, 
that's perfectly within the purview of whoever owns 
http://www.w3.org/ns/rel.   It wouldn't necessarily be the only URL for 
the relation; it would just be one easy option.

For people who don't want to use URLs for relations, this wouldn't 
affect them, and they wouldn't need to know about it.  This would NOT 
mandate that systems which understand rel=X have to also accept 
rel=http://www.w3.org/ns/rel#X.  It would just allow every RDF system to 
know one way link relations might be shown in RDF.

The only technical issue I can think of -- and this isn't a problem, 
just a question -- is whether dereferencing 
http://www.w3.org/ns/rel#type gives you a triple saying it's the same as 
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type.    I'd lean toward Yes.

Does anyone see a TECHNICAL problem with this idea?

Who do you think might dislike it for non-technical reasons?    Feel 
free to respond off-list on this last point.

       -- Sandro

Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2014 22:13:05 UTC