- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 08:43:10 -0400
- To: public-ldp@w3.org
- Message-ID: <515197DE.7050608@openlinksw.com>
On 3/26/13 5:41 AM, Henry Story wrote: >> True, but if it's just a parameter on the media type then we can mostly just ignore it… > I don't think we're here to create standards that we will ignore in order > to help some people overcome problems that they only thought existed. > Bearing in mind that we do have a problem re. RDF and RDF based Linked Data conflation that's hidden via best practices adopted by RDF based Linked Data tools implementers. What would you suggest as a solution? We have to solve this problem. I believe Erik's "text/plain" and "text/html" analogy frames the problem nicely. For instance, look back to the thread between yourself and Andy about relative URIs and RDF graphs [1][2]. We have a single media type serving two distinct functions i.e., graph expression (relative URIs are fine here) and actual graph serialization (relative URIs aren't acceptable here). Links: 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2012Oct/0132.html -- sample post from relative URIs and RDF graphs thread . 2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Mar/0095.html -- ditto . -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2013 12:43:28 UTC