- 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>
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. +1 > 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... Steven
Received on Monday, 6 October 2008 11:53:45 UTC