- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:43:14 -0600
- To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 14:24 -0500, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote: > To: The TAG > From: The Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment Working Group > > SYNOPSIS: > Is it okay to have the same URI identify both a location within an HTML > document and a concept in an ontology? What is the class of > "information resources"? Would the TAG wish to define a URI for it? Is > it owl:disjointWith anything? What can be concluded if an HTTP response > code is other than 2xx, 4xx or 303? To re-iterate what I said in another mailing list: [[ I don't think the TAG endorses what I'm doing there. The most relevant TAG issues are still open. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues#fragmentInXML-28 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues#abstractComponentRefs-37 I'm starting to think that the profile attribute is key: if you get an HTML representation of /baseballplayers with <div id="peterose"> then baseballplayers#peterose identifies that div element, unless the author says otherwise using the <head profile> element. This is a post-hoc refinement of the html media types and the XHTML specs; i.e. I think those specs should be ammendmended to specify this practice. ]] -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Feb/0010 Fri, 03 Feb 2006 08:41:30 -0600 I think the questions you ask are interesting, David, but httpRange-14 is closed and I don't see much motivation to re-open it. Better to connect this discussion to other issues. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2006 23:43:20 UTC