W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > December 2019

Re: HTML entry point for the RDF Namespace?

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 07:10:44 +0100
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
Message-Id: <187EFC04-0DF3-4C2E-95AE-70DA8F882A79@w3.org>
To: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>

I would prefer to put the HTML vs. HTML+RDFa issue aside for now. The core question is whether providing an HTML return would be a problem in the first place. Andreas' answer[1] just reinforces  the fact that we must be cautious about this. For something as fundamental as the core RDF vocabulary namespace document extreme caution is more important than the aesthetics of having yet another file in the content negotiation process for HTML…



[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2019Dec/0036.html

> On 16 Dec 2019, at 18:36, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote:
> On 16/12/2019 17.45, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> At the moment, the file is pure HTML, with the vocabulary embedded in JSON-LD
> Is that useful?
>> Turning it to RDFa is much more work, 
> I don't doubt - pipeline or workflow?
> I think it is generally way less work because it is done once and the ns
> content does not change often.
> However, the current HTML document will require duplicate information
> for 1) inline and human-visible content 2) JSON-LD in the script block.
> If the amount of work to make it RDFa compatible is an actual concern,
> I'm happy to contribute and take that off your plate.
>> and I am not convinced it would help the legacy applications I am talking about, which may have been created way before RDFa was defined.
> I don't know the legacy applications that you are referring to but is it
> when a class of consumers omit Content-Type in the request, or perhaps
> they only know RDF/XML or Turtle, they may run into trouble with the
> HTML response?
> AFAIK, the response is entitled to return Turtle if there is no
> Content-Type if it seems appropriate. Which is what's happening
> currently re:
> curl -iL http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns
> How are the legacy applications handling the Turtle response which may
> have been created way before Turtle was defined?
> I'd like to better understand in which cases or class of legacy
> applications may have a problem with HTML.
> The ns in HTML+RDFa will be a welcomed addition. Useful to newcomers so
> they can orient themselves prior to encountering the download prompt
> with Turtle.
> -Sarven

Ivan Herman, W3C 
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2019 06:10:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:46:02 UTC