Re: describedby registration

On 2/24/15 12:35 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Apologies again for missing the call yesterday.
>
> A quick question:  Is there a technical or political reason why the 
> registration of isdescribedby in the LDP spec does not state that it's 
> the inverse relationship of describes?  Is this is the unwritten 
> intent, however?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rob

As far as I know, this isn't for technical or political reasons. More to 
do with the fact that sometimes these obvious issues get overlooked 
during spec construction.

One little issue might be IANA domain HTTP URIs not resolving to RDF 
documents (e.g., at least TURTLE and/or JSON-LD notation) [1].


[1] https://github.com/mnot/I-D/issues/39#issuecomment-75502652 .

-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Personal Weblog 2: 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
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this

Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2015 18:15:09 UTC