- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:31:54 -0400
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org, www-international@w3.org
> I am unclear as to what is the correct reading as an RDF graph of a
> particular representation retrived from the Web.
...
> <rdf:RDF
> xmlns:rdf=3D'http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#'
> xmlns:rdfs=3D'http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#'
> >
>
> <rdf:Description rdf:about=3D"#r">
I don't know the answer to your question, by am I right in thinking that
authors can avoid this dilemma by including an xml:base? I think a good
practice is to include xml:base whenever the graph is essentially data
instead of embedded metadata. That is, authors should think about the
case where their served respresentation is saved-to-disk and/or
republished at another address by a third party. When that happens,
will the resulting document be more truthful with or without an xml:base
set to the original location? For example, a foaf file probably should
have an xml:base and the metadata embedded in a jpeg file, talking about
the image, probably should not.
(I'm sorry if this is covered in some spec that I've not yet heard
about.)
Of course, if you *want* the base end with "résumé" you're out of luck,
since XML Base [1] says you can only use a URI. But at least you've
avoided the dilemma.
-- Sandro
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:31:57 UTC