- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:22:51 +0000
- To: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@virgilio.it>, "www-rdf-comments" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
At 14:53 25/11/2002 +0100, Danny Ayers wrote: [...] >Sorry Brian, I'm a little confused, could you just please clarify - > >irrespective of the mime-type of the document containing > ><rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/something#foo"> > >the interpretation of http://example.org/something#foo here will be the >(opaque) RDF interpretation if the mime-type of http://example.org/something >is application/rdf+xml, >but if the mime-type of http://example.org/something was text/html then this >would likely be interpreted as an element <a name="foo"> in >http://example.org/something > >ok so far? No. Wrong. In <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/something#foo"> RDF defines the URI to refer to whatever a document of type application/rdf-xml would define it to mean. RDF defines that, irrespective of the mime-type of the document it is contained in. The point here is that there is no single mime-type for http://example.org/something. In general, that URI does not denote a representation with a specific mime-type. Now lets consider a URI that does refer specifically to that representation: <rdf:Description rdf:about="rep:text/html:http://example.org/something#foo"> then the RDF denotation of that uriref is exactly the same as the html one. Brian
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 10:21:24 UTC