- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:26:37 -0500
- To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
- Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Jan 29, 2009, at 11:12 AM, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote: > But this is *exactly* the issue that arises when one wishes, for > example, to indicate that one URI has been deprecated by another > URI: you need to talk about the *URI*, not about the resource > *denoted* by the URI. So I do think it is important to raise this > point. You and I think this issue is important, but I don't think it necessarily has to be addressed by the two drafts in question (Link: and resource discovery), since neither specifies how a Link: is to be translated to RDF. Plausible deniability would say that when we convert to RDF we can do as we like, and in particular we can preserve the URI. I could go either way on this and would be happy if you promoted this clarification with Eran and Mark. I'm out on too many limbs already... Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 29 January 2009 16:27:21 UTC