Re: rel names vs URLs

On 10 Jul 2014, at 00:12, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:

> 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.

+1

> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/

Received on Thursday, 10 July 2014 11:44:29 UTC