- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:29:47 +0000
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@miscoranda.com>
- Cc: "David Booth" <dbooth@hp.com>, www-tag@w3.org
On 4 Dec 2007, at 16:55, Sean B. Palmer wrote: > Generally if I request an HTTP URI and it sends me back some RDF > giving properties of the resource denoted by the URI, I take that as > authoritative. Yes. But the vast majority of HTTP URIs are for traditional web pages, and those don't return any RDF. We are left to guess what they identify. Web pages? People? Things? Automated tools have no way to tell, and hence it's not really possible to make RDF statements about those URIs with any confidence. This sucks, because RDF was originally created to ... wait for it ... express metadata about those traditional web pages. httpRange-14 axiomatically declares that for all those URIs, the “naïve” interpretation is correct: They identify “the Google home page”; “Richard's homepage”; “the TAG blog”; and so on. They do not identify companies, people, and so on. Hence it becomes viable to use RDF for saying things about web pages. > Why do we need this weird implicit and useless classing > via HTTP responses? Because otherwise, we would have no clue what http://inamidst.com/sbp identifies. Thanks to that 303 thing, we know that it identifies a web document, and a snapshot of it currently sits in my browser window. Best, Richard > > > -- > Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/ > >
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 17:30:12 UTC