- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 14:03:56 -0400
- To: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>
- CC: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Linking Open Data <public-lod@w3.org>
Giovanni Tummarello wrote: >> RDFa will not generally negate the essential separation of Name (via >> URI.URN-URL) and Address (via URI.URL) since Linked Data oriented triples >> will still contain de-referencable URIs :-) >> > > if you can put the RDF and the human legible HTML version in the same > address there is absolutely no reason to have separate resources. > > If you really want to make it clear that "its not an informative > resource" (its not like up to today we had any evidence of this being > practically useful or enabling so far, matter of fact there are > evidences of the contrary [1]) then just say that in the RDF > <thisuri> <isnot> <aninformativeresource> :-) > > gone with content negotiation, gone with multiple URI URN URL and > distinctions among them. > > I hope we can agree on the principle of keeping things absolutely as > easy as possible, as the only way to win (back..) interest from the > actual web development circles and have adoption > > Giovanni > > [1] http://google-code-updates.blogspot.com/2008/02/urls-are-people-too.html > > Giovanni, I am absolutely game for clarity and simplicity. So let's work on a document, or contribute to any that may be in development, re. injecting more RDFa into the Linked Data conversation :-) -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen President & CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Monday, 4 May 2009 18:04:35 UTC