- From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 00:26:16 +0100
- To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "SWD WG" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Hi Dan, This is an interesting question. I don't think mime types were supposed to be the disambiguater, though; I saw it more as a combination of conventions. Also, after working through this very issue last year I came to the conclusion that whilst microformats ends up mixing resources and information resources, RDFa's use of @about actually gets us out of this bind. This is illustrated with some samples here: <http://www.formsplayer.com/node/271> (It's just towards the end of a tutorial on RDFa.) The whole thing is discussed more fully here: <http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/2006/05/information-resource-debate-and-rdfa.html> where I work through my initial disagreement with the TAG approach to resources and information resources...to discover that I was wrong to disagree, and it's actually the only way you could approach the question. ;) Regards, Mark On 19/06/07, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote: > > Ben Adida wrote: > > > > Issue #29: > > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/29 > > > > What should the MIME type of an RDFa document be? Proposal: whatever the > > MIME type of the host document is. In the case of XHTML1.1+RDFa, > > application/xhtml+xml. If/when RDFa becomes a valid extension for other > > versions of HTML, then it will take on whatever MIME type they accept. > > > > Thoughts? Questions? Please answer, no matter what you think :) > > +cc TimBL and DanC here, picking up from an IRC discussion a few days > ago. I was asking just this. Well actually I was asking about meaning of > refs like http://example.com/danbri#me if /danbri is an RDFa HTML > document. There is a tradition in the HTML world of #blah referencing a > document section, and in the RDF world (with a lot of push from Tim) for > #blah to be something that can name real-world (non-informational) > resources. The general understanding is that mimetypes are the thing > that establishes the interpretation of #. And so the answer to this > question will shape whether people can address into the non-info world > by pointing to #blahblah within an RDFa doc. > > For very concrete example, imagine this as RDFa in a <head> section: > > <link rel="foaf:primaryTopic" href="#thething-itself" /> > > And then later in the page contents: > > <div about="#thething-itself"> > <p property="xyz:abc"> > > ...on the assumption that the xyz:abc property was supposed to be about > the realworld main topic of the page (maybe a person, a movie, a museum > artifact, etc). > > On my understanding there are some interactions between this style of > RDFa and the existing conventions for text/html and > application/xhtml+xml. Do we lose the RDF/XML idiom of using #blah to > refer to the external world, then? Is this a big loss? > > cheers, > > Dan > > > -- Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer mark.birbeck@x-port.net | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com standards. innovation.
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 23:26:25 UTC