- From: Kristof Zelechovski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
- Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 18:54:38 +0200
I understand that there are ways to recover resources that disappear from the Web; however, the postulated advantage of RDFa "you can go see what it means" simply does not hold. The recovery mechanism, Web search/cache, would be as good for CURIE URL as for domain prefixes. Creating a redirect is not always possible and the built-in redirect dictionary (CURIE catalog?) smells of a central repository. This is no better than public entity identifiers in XML. Serving the vocabulary from the own domain is not always possible, e.g. in case of reader-contributed content, and only guarantees that the vocabulary will be alive while it is supported by the domain owner. (WHATWG wants HTML documents to be readable 1000 years from now.) It is not always practical either as it could confuse URL-based tools that do not retrieve the resources referenced. All this does not imply, of course, that RDFa is no good. It is only intended to demonstrate that the postulated advantage of the CURIE lookup is wishful thinking. Best regards, Chris
Received on Friday, 15 May 2009 09:54:38 UTC