- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:39:59 +0000
- To: Gary Ng <Gary.Ng@cerebra.com>
- CC: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>, SWBPD list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, public-rdf-in-xhtml task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Gary Ng wrote: > There must be situations where the href="..." is only logical and is not > deferenceable, or in another situations where the author really intend to > just assert that resource reference as a piece of metadata and has no > intension for anyone to dereference? > > For example, > > A. Don't want to dereference for metadata: > foaf:mbox = "mailto:jo.lambda@example.org" > > B. Those to dereference for more metadata (e.g in the Department members page) > to build up a contact list: > <a rel="foaf:member" href="http://jo-lamda.blogspot.com/">Jo Lamda</a> > > C. Those to dereference but there is going to be nothing there so we need to > add metadata locally. In this case it seems like the approach is to use > additional elements with about="..." to specify. > My understanding is that when loading an RDF graph from a document, however it is serialized, there is always the issue of whether you want to dereference the resources referred to, in order to get more triples. Common practice is not to; but cwm, for instance, supports a mode where you do read everything, recursively ... It is clear that if the scheme does not support a GET operation then you cannot, so A. unambiguously cannot be dereferenced. For case B, one could do a GET, with appropriate accept-headers, and if what comes back is RDF (in any form, RDF/XML, N3, RDF/A ...) then you could read it as more metadata. There is no consensus about the status of the relationship between the propositional attitudes expressed in the two documents loaded. So I don't see this as an RDF/A issue, but a much wider semantic web issue. Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2006 12:54:55 UTC