Re: Semantics of rdfs:seeAlso (Was: Is it best practices to use a rdfs:seeAlso link to a potentially multimegabyte PDF?)

Hi,

First: Thanks for the kind clarification!

>> In parallel, we can discourage people to use rdfs:seeAlso to point  
>> to non-RDF resources in the future. It can easily be substituted by  
>> foaf:depiction for images and foaf:page for HTML resources without  
>> RDFa.
>
> Yes, exactly.


FYI: The W3C HTTP headers "ontology" at

    http://www.w3.org/2008/http-headers

uses rdfs:isDefinedBy to point to non-RDF resources, e.g. RFCs in  
plain text:

<rdf:Description rdf:about="#content-encoding">
<rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt 
"/>
<dc:description xml:lang="en">The Content-Encoding header</ 
dc:description>
<dc:title xml:lang="en">Content-Encoding</dc:title>
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2006/http#HeaderName"/>
</rdf:Description>

Since rdfs:isDefinedBy is a subproperty of rdfs:seeAlso, this may also  
clash with existing FOAF client code, unless the lack of inferencing  
in a given environment isolates the problem.

The same holds also for

    http://www.w3.org/2008/http-methods
    http://www.w3.org/2008/http-statusCodes

If there is agreement to avoid rdfs:seeAlso for non-RDF resources, we  
should also avoid rdfs:isDefinedBy.

Best
Martin

Received on Monday, 17 January 2011 22:33:28 UTC