- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:14:25 -0500
- To: Toby A Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- CC: RDFa Developers <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Toby A Inkster wrote: > > The issue included in the TF minutes is not really including @id and > @about on the same element - there's nothing wrong with that, but > rather trying to use the same fragment identifier (hence the same URI) > to refer to two separate things. (In the SKOS case, they use the same > URI to identify both a document fragment and an rdf:Property.) Yes. And I maintain that the TAG has debated this for ages. I don't pretend to understand the debate, but it seems to focus upon using request Accept headers to determine what the requester wanted, and then status codes (303? 304?) or responses to provide the values the requester wanted (e.g., I want a document fragment that is text/html, or I want authoritative representation of this URI iI have followed my nose to as application/rdf+xml, or whatever). I think that this basic issue of content negotiation / semantic interpretation is WAY outside of the scope of RDFa. Second, I can't see how this matters except in the most "how many angels are on the head of this pin" sort of way. If what we are being asked to do is give best practice guidance, then I think that we should defer to the experts on semweb content negotiation. Surely that's not us? -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Thursday, 11 June 2009 22:15:23 UTC