RE: RDDL Nature of HTML was Re: The URI of a RDDL "nature"

?

why don't you use the http:www.rddl.org/natures/ prefix cum context to quote the
entire original html url?
what is the purpose of presupposing an editorial intent in the reference itself?

....

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Borden
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 17.52
> To: Norman Walsh
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: RDDL Nature of HTML was Re: The URI of a RDDL "nature"
>
>
>
> Regarding the nature of HTML4 I had initially proposed that the URI
> of the REC be used:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4
>
> This has caused discussion and raised the concern that there might be
> conflation of this URI identifying a "W3C REC" i.e. a document vs.
> identifying a RDDL nature (which we are suggesting is a class).
>
> The way that I had initially considered this, the specification
> *does* formally define a class of documents, namely those which
> validate as HTML 4.01. The specification includes pointers to DTDs
> etc. which allow such a validation test to be performed.
>
> Alternatively we can define a RDDL document which describes HTML 4.01
> (and via GRDDL allows RDF statements to be made about HTML 4.01). We
> could use the URI http://www.rddl.org/natures/html#v4.01 as the
> rddl:nature of HTML 4.01. My server doesn't seem to be properly
> resolving that URI *** to the document that I've placed at:
>
> http://www.rddl.org/natures/html.html
>
> So please look at this and see if this is something appropriate to
> describe the nature of HTML 4.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> *** undoubtedly an Apache config thingy that I have to do

Received on Monday, 16 January 2006 13:48:49 UTC