W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2001

RE: Linking RDF

From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 20:12:25 -0400
To: "Murray Altheim" <altheim@eng.sun.com>, "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
Cc: "Danny Ayers" <danny@panlanka.net>, "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003701c0c865$69843ce0$0201a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
Murray Altheim wrote:
> I feel like I'm not making any progress here though in one idea, and
> that is that linking to "RDF" is almost like linking to "XML" -- one
> needs to specify what specific grammar of RDF is being served. Otherwise,
> the processor has no understanding of the semantics of the received RDF.

if you look back through the initial discussions on xml-dev as RDDL was
being created, you will see that I initially proposed putting the RDDL
resources in the XHTML head as links, much as is being proposed here.
Needless to say, I was convinced otherwise. Similary MIME types are not
always adequate to describe the linked resource type. This is the reason
behind describing a related resource by its "purpose" with respect to the
link and the "nature" of the related resource.

> I don't think there's a MIME type for Dublin Core, and of course there
> won't be for author-designed RDF types. So 'type' doesn't really work
> that well either. Ideally, a namespace URI (ironically) would probably
> be best, since that allows for author-designed RDF applications, and
> doesn't force anyone to use only those RDF applications approved by a
> specific body.

The nature or xlink:role is often the namespace of the root element of the
referenced resource.

Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2001 20:12:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:29 UTC