W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2008

Re: "the main thing described by this document" (was lcsh.info RDFa SKOS and content negotiation - use of RDF-style # IDs in RDFa?

From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:52:41 +0200
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uilpx3ndsmjzpq@acer3010>

On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:42:20 +0200, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

> OK. How about picking things up around ttdb,  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001May/0327.html etc.
> My main concern there is with the date index. It is definitely useful,  
> ...but I'd like also to be able to encourage non-datestamped usage,  
> particularly for documents whose maintainers make a respectable-looking  
> commitment not to alter them. The dates make work harder for aggregators  
> to find out when two URIs actually are talking about the same entity,  
> ... and since that's what we're setting out to make easier, I think  
> sometimes the risk of using a smaller set of identifiers is going to be  
> worth it.


> http://larry.masinter.net/duri.html "This Internet-Draft will expire on  
> October 16, 2004."
> Anyone know if there are plans to ressurect this?

Touch it and you keep it. Go for it Dan!

> For RDFa usage, relative URIs might be an issue to spend time on, if we  
> want to embed RDFa claims about 'the thing described by' the current  
> page, without including its full http://etc URI.
> Having a way of mixing in 'the thing that has this value of this  
> property' identification would also be great...

And now you go and make it more difficult! You could have at least started  
a new thread...

Received on Monday, 6 October 2008 11:53:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:25 UTC