- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 12:48:41 -0400
- To: "Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>, "Paul Grosso" <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Graham Klyne wrote: > > Yes. If one presumes an RDF representation, that provides the > MIME-type-relative interpretation according to rules of the RDF MIME > type. And if an RDF document representation is retrievable at the > indicated URI-without-fragment, then it should be regarded as the defining > document. > RDF at present doesn't seem to deal with this issue at all. RDF _might say_ that URIs are dereferenced with an Accept: application/rdf+xml content-type -- which either succeeds or fails, and if it were to succeed then ... but until RDF makes some statement about how an RDF "conformant" application is supposed to dereference a URI, isn't it hard for the TAG to make an issue? Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2002 12:54:08 UTC