Re: siteData-36: strawman + httpRange-14 [ "Resource-Type:" ]

Sandro Hawke wrote:

>>Of course, this leads inevitably to the question of what is a useful 
>>representation for a site.  The kinds of stuff that could go there could 
>>include robots info, language info, favicon.ico equivalent, RSS info, 
>>p3p info, etc etc etc.  Unlike the RDDL issues we've been discussing, I 
>>see little requirement for human readability, so this feels like a 
>>natural for a small (but extensible) RDF vocabulary, who cares if it's 
>>ugly.  The RDF assertions would mostly have as their subject the URI "", 
>>which works well in this case.  -Tim
> But if you do that, then you can't distinguish between assertions
> about the site and assertions about the site information document.
> For instance, the site might have been created on one day and this
> site-information RDF document might have been created on another.  Is
> the triple 
>    <> dc:date "2003-02-27"
> saying that the site was created today or that the meta-site
> information page was created today?

The resource is the *site*; so <> is talking about the site.  I see no 
ambiguity. If you want to publish another URI for the RDF document as an 
RDF document, that's a different resource. -Tim

Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 17:25:43 UTC