- From: Arjan Wekking <a.wekking@synantics.nl>
- Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 16:24:35 +0100
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Hello Dom, Interesting schema, I've been touching the same kind of 'problem' (describing parts of a website) but with the intent to use the description as a real internal sitemap for a website. HTTP requests would be looked up in this and the described resources would have other properties that define how the page would be rendered to HTML etc. Anyway, I've taken a quick peek at your spec and one thing strikes me as odd; why do you define the type of the described resources as a literal? Why not make the those classes (like SiteMap, Menu, Contact, etc) _real_ rdfs classes, and define the type using rdf:type? I see you mention the type literal being similar to rdf:type and seem to support both, but why not just use rdf:type? Also, how does the spec cope with rdf:lang in type literals? I'm interested to hear what your reasons are. Regards, -Arjan On 10-dec-04, at 15:47, Dom Vonarburg wrote: > > Hi all, > > The first draft of ROR (Resources of a Resource) is > available at http://www.rorweb.com > > ROR is simple vocabulary for describing the resources > of a resource (a website, a blog, a feed, a list of > things, a tree or web structure, etc) in a generic > fashion. > > It also provides terms for describing objects commonly > found on websites (products, articles, feeds, > newsletters, methods, sitemaps, menus, reviews, etc). > > Dom Vonarburg
Received on Saturday, 18 December 2004 15:25:28 UTC