Re: Linking RDF

Jonathan Borden wrote:
> 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.

Agreed. It seems strange (perhaps since we have that hindsight 20/20 thing)
that such features were left out of earlier specs. 

> > 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.

Yes, this is my take on our best bet going forward with XLink, though
it's ripe for overloading, I fear.


Murray Altheim, SGML/XML Grease Monkey     <mailto:altheim&#64;>
XML Technology Center
Sun Microsystems, 1601 Willow Rd., MS UMPK17-102, Menlo Park, CA 94025

      the wood louse sits on a splinter and sings to the rising sap
      ain't it awful how winter lingers in springtimes lap -- archy

Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2001 20:16:05 UTC