Re: Resource references/httpRange-14 (was: [Minutes] 1 July TAG teleconf)

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