- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:10:10 -0400
- To: トーレ エリクソン <tore.eriksson@po.rd.taisho.co.jp>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Hi Tore, On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 16:48 +0900, トーレ エリクソン wrote: > Hi David, > > Although we differ on the point of Information Resources (surprise, > surprise), I think your proposal is quite similar to mine. That seems like a good thing. :) > I'd like you > to clarify one difference though. In section 3.23 you require > > @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> . > <http://example/toucan> rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://example/toucan> . > > Why can't the representation be a URI definition even without this > statement? It seems to me that it being served as a 200 should be enough > to be sure of its validity. Good question. I'm not sure. I think the 200 response does indicate that the URI owner intended to make whatever statements the document contains, but I don't know if that should automatically mean that the URI owner considers them to be a URI *definition*, as I think it is important that the URI owner be able to clearly distinguish between content that is intended to be a URI definition and other content involving the target URI. I've added this as Issue 10: http://www.w3.org/wiki/UriDefinitionDiscoveryProtocol#3.2.3._200_response_with_RDF_content [[ Should RDF content from an HTTP 200 response be considered a URI definition by default, even if it does not contain an rdfs:isDefinedBy assertion for the target URI? Are there cases where the URI owner would want to serve an RDF document from a target URI without intending it as a URI definition of that URI? Given that RDF content may be hard to distinguish from other content, are there cases where the URI owner would want to serve _any_ document without intending that document as a URI definition of that URI? ]] I'd be interested in hearing more thoughts on this. -- David Booth, Ph.D. http://dbooth.org/ Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of his employer.
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 13:10:44 UTC