- From: Ruben Verborgh <Ruben.Verborgh@UGent.be>
- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 19:23:03 +0000
- To: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
- CC: public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>, "public-rww@w3.org" <public-rww@w3.org>
> and dct:format adds > support for some extra media types. That's not the definition of dct:format. It's meaning is not "is available as" but rather "The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource." Which sources do you find for your definition? > So a more explicit (but not practical) example would be something like: > > <http://some.com/img/19f87c54-bb97-4aa7-8163-166e3858f45e> > dct:format "image/jpeg", "application/xhtml+xml", > "application/rdf+xml", "application/n-quads", "text/rdf+n3", > "application/n-triples", "application/ld+json", "application/rdf+xml", > "application/rdf+thrift", "text/turtle", "text/trig" . I cannot think of any resource that can be both represented as application/n-triples and image/jpeg, unless that image/jpeg is a "screenshot" of the text or something (but let's agree that is a pathological case). In the more general case, no JPEG image can be represented as RDF; rather, a document about that image can be represented as RDF. So we are talking about two different resources: – the image (can have representations: JPEG, GIF, PNG, …) – metadata about the image (can have representations: HTML, Turtle, …) In other words, the resource design as presented is wrong; two different things are being conflated into one. > Do your arguments still hold? Yes. Best, Ruben
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2017 19:24:08 UTC