- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:39:46 +0000
- To: www-talk@w3.org, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, eran@hueniverse.com
re. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-site-meta-00.txt Regarding the general approach I'm not convinced that "pre-empting an authority's URI namespace" is a "necessary evil". I'm sure you are aware of the primary argument against using well-known names in this way [1]. A possible alternative would be to include a link in the root namespace document pointing to the site-meta document. i.e. client GETs: http://example.com/ depending on conneg, the doc returned would contain something like: <link rel="site-meta" href="http://example.com/site-meta" /> or <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.com/"> <x:siteMeta rdf:resource=""http://example.com/site-meta" /> </rdf:Description> - thus the URI of the metadata document could be decided by the publisher. While this approach does add a step of indirection, I believe it would offer greater flexibility in also allowing sub-path hierarchies of the site to refer to their own, more local, metadata. Regarding the document format, it seems reasonable enough, though I can't help thinking it might be advantageous to define it as an extension to the Sitemap Protocol [2], along the lines of the Semantic Web Crawling extension [3]. Cheers, Danny. [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#siteData-36 [2] https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/docs/en/protocol.html [3] http://sw.deri.org/2007/07/sitemapextension/ -- http://dannyayers.com ~ http://blogs.talis.com/nodalities/this_weeks_semantic_web/
Received on Thursday, 16 October 2008 20:23:32 UTC