Re: On reading material for f2f - Web Linking

Julian, Tim,

>> - Add a section of 6.2 to say that IANA will maintain an RDF document at
>> the address defining each registered name as an RDF Property, with at
>> least rdfs:label in at least one language and rdfs:comment and a
>> reference to the specification in which the relationship is defined.
>> And that client software must not look up this file more than once in
>> its installed life.
> 
> Telling IANA to serve certain documents from well-known URIs is a
> non-starter for now; they simply do not understand the Web (with all due
> respect :-). Adding RDF to this would probably cause even more confusion.

I'm certainly not in the position to judge what IANA can or can not do.
However, why wait for IANA to move? We can set up something comparable to
what Ed Summers did for the media types registration [1] at [2].

The IANA has based its registry on XML, AFAICT [3] - so I guess time for
some nice XSLTs ;)

Cheers,
      Michael

[1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/
[2] http://mediatypes.appspot.com/
[3] http://www.iana.org/reports/2008/xml-registry-launch.html

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html



> From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 14:20:31 +0100
> To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
> Cc: TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: On reading material for f2f  - Web Linking
> Resent-From: <www-tag@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 13:21:12 +0000
> 
> Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
>> 
>> ___________________________________
>> 
>>             Web Linking
>> draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06
> 
> Note that here's work on progress on an update, see
> <http://www.mnot.net/drafts/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-07.txt>.
> 
>> ...
>> - "The "rev" parameter has also been used for this
>>  by some formats, and is included here for
>>    compatibility with those uses,   defined by this specification."
>> Alas.  It is a design feature, which allows    {A chapter B} to be
>> stated in A or B.  And why define it in the syntax and not give its
>> perfectly well defined semantics?
> 
> The draft of the -07 draft doesn't have it anymore (I personally think
> it's not a good idea to take it out...).
> 
>> - In relation-type,  How to distinguish a relative URI (parsed relative
>> to the requested resource URI) and a token (parsed relative to
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/)?
>> 
>> Hmmmm "Note that extension relation types are REQUIRED to be absolute
>> URIs"   Oopps.. why? This was a mistake in the Namespaecs spec, as there
>> are times (like when a CSV file is converted into RDF) that the
>> namespaces are local.   Unwise to block it just because we can't think
>> of a use now.  Unless it is to solve the ambiguity. In which case more
>> consitent say parse it w r t http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/.
> 
> It used to say that earlier on, until HTML people told us to special
> case the token form (because of the case-insensitive handling in HTML
> link elements).
> 
>> - title*=UTF-8'de'letztes%20Kapitel"    Really hanging double quote on
>> the end?
> 
> That will be fixed in -07.
> 
>> - Add a section of 6.2 to say that IANA will maintain an RDF document at
>> the address defining each registered name as an RDF Property, with at
>> least rdfs:label in at least one language and rdfs:comment and a
>> reference to the specification in which the relationship is defined.
>> And that client software must not look up this file more than once in
>> its installed life.
> 
> Telling IANA to serve certain documents from well-known URIs is a
> non-starter for now; they simply do not understand the Web (with all due
> respect :-). Adding RDF to this would probably cause even more confusion.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
>

Received on Sunday, 6 December 2009 14:00:12 UTC