- From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:14:45 -0700
- To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Hey all, I want to bring up the issue of non-information resources again for the purpose of the @href-everywhere discussion. Mark, you pointed out that @resource would help point to non-information resources, because, to quote you: > But what about when XHTML 2 makes all @hrefs > navigable? A precise interpretation of the mark-up (from an RDF > standpoint) would be this: > > <> foaf:knows <http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf> . > <http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf> rdf:type foaf:Document . http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Jun/0156 I think the above is incorrect, because the assertion that a URI is of type document can be made only by ivan-herman.net. It specifically makes that assertion by choosing what return code to issue when dereferencing that URI, as per the TAG resolution on this. A 200 return code means it's an information resource, while a 303 return code that redirects to a document about that URI means it can be a non-information resource. In other words, I can say: ===== I know <a rel="foaf:knows" href="http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#"> Ivan </a>. ===== and that's okay, because when I click on that link, Ivan's server will redirect me to foaf.xhtml with a 303, so navigation works just fine, but I'm actually linking to the non-information resource for semantic purposes. Is it complicated for publishers? Sure, but that's not our doing, that's the general issue with RDF and non-information resources. In other words, I don't see this as an argument for adding @resource. We can still discuss @resource vs. @href, but I want to make sure we get the above issue out of the way first. -Ben
Received on Monday, 9 July 2007 18:15:02 UTC