- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:41:16 -0500
- To: "DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO)" <bob.ducharme@lexisnexis.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
* DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO) <bob.ducharme@lexisnexis.com> [2004-11-29 12:16-0500]
> Thanks. Do you know if Resource Description Framework plays any role in the
> CVS log files, or did the people doing those, like the ReDIF folk, pick an
> extension of "rdf" for some unrelated reason?
That's an oddity of CVSWeb. You're looking at a generated HTML page that
is _about_ some (yes, typically W3C RDF/XML) document that's in a CVS
repository. If you hit the 'revision 1.1' or whatever link, you'll get
an HTMLization of the content, plus navbar stuff. If you hit download,
you'll get the actual RDF.
http://cvs2.oeone.com/index.cgi/penzilla3/apps/appliancemanagement/content/contents.rdf
http://cvs2.oeone.com/index.cgi/penzilla3/apps/appliancemanagement/content/contents.rdf?rev=1.9&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup
http://cvs2.oeone.com/index.cgi/~checkout~/penzilla3/apps/appliancemanagement/content/contents.rdf?rev=1.9
In fact CVSWeb isn't doing anything wrong, assuming they're sending
correct content-type headers. People can choose to end their URIs in
whatever characters they prefer. But it is a little counter-intuitive.
That last URL parses as RDF using http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator
although there are some warnings w.r.t. RDFCore's namespace prefixing
decision ('rdf:about' and 'rdf:resource' vs just 'about' and 'resource').
They're Mozilla Chrome files, and Moz's RDF implementation is showing its age.
Dan
Received on Monday, 29 November 2004 17:41:17 UTC