- From: Lars Heuer <heuer@semagia.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 17:51:56 +0100
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- CC: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi Kingsley, [...] >> An example: >> <http://www.amazon.com/Identity-Crisis-Brad-Meltzer/dp/1401204589/> >> returns 200 with no machine-readable data (like RDFa). > Methinks RDFa is machine readable. The machine simply needs to > understand RDFa. Thus, if the user agent is committed to RDFa, it should > be able to interpret RDFa content; giving the content an option to > clarify matters re. whether an IRI is Name or Address. Of course RDFa is machine readable. My example was HTML *without* RDFa. >> If I use the >> identifier today, it has to be interpreted as "I talk about that >> particular IRI (an HTML document)". > No, that's only true if you interpret what HTTP is accurately relaying > to you re. your quest for a Document, as the end of the matter. > You to HTTP Server: GET me a Document at URL > HTTP Server: Found it (200 OK) or look somewhere else (30X). [...] I guess you didn't understand the example. Maybe I didn't explain well enough, though. [...] > Again, my response stands. That's the case re. Virtuoso. You are saying: > I haven't experienced that. Hence my insistence re. Virtuoso. A product cannot be the answer of the deeper problem. Anyway, the problem of identifying subjects via IRIs is rather old (see [1] for one example) and it seems that there is no appealing solution yet (leaving Topic Maps aside for the moment) [1] <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/HTTP-URI> Best regards, Lars -- Semagia <http://www.semagia.com>
Received on Friday, 12 November 2010 16:49:46 UTC