Hi Jeni, Thanks for your response.
On Fri, 2012-03-23 at 21:42 +0000, Jeni Tennison wrote: > The big thing that *is* different under this proposal is that if you have an > HTML+RDFa 1.1 document like: > > <!DOCTYPE html> > <html> > <head> > <base href="http://example.org/me"/> > <link rel="stylesheet" resource="style.css"/> > <title>Me</title> > </head> > <body typeof="foaf:Person"> > <h1 property="foaf:name">James</h1> > </body> > </html> > > returned with a 200 response from http://example.org/me then the application > knows: > > * <http://example.org/me> is a Person > * <http://example.org/me>'s name is "James" > > and does not have a stray and inaccurate > > * <http://example.org/me> is an information resource > > hanging around which was contrary to the publisher's intent. > In the above example, the last statement is stray and inaccurate, but that it is not always the case. Consider: <!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head> <base href="http://example.org/me"/> <link rel="stylesheet" resource="style.css"/> <title>Me</title> </head> <body typeof="foaf:Document"> <h1 property="dc:title">Me</h1> </body> </html> > Anyway, I wonder how we might change the paragraph that you quoted to remove > the implication that publishers can get away with one URI when they want to > identify two things. Would this work better: > > where a URI is intended to identify a NIR but provides a 200 > response, there remains no method of addressing the > documentation that is returned by that 200 response (to assert > its license, provenance etc); publishers still need to support > a separate URI if they want to make statements about the > documentation distinct from the NIR. An updated set of best > practices for linked data publishers would need to spell out what > publishers should do and how consumers should combine the > information provided within the response with that found at the > end of any ‘describedby’ links. > Good suggestion, but I don't think we can make the decision for all cases like this. I think we need to leave interpretation up to the agent, who perhaps knows more about the publisher's intents. If an agent is looking for foaf:Person, let it disregard the statement "this is an information resource" (no disagreements here). However, if an agent is looking specifically for information resources, let it use the URL (w/200 response) as the identifier of an IR, regardless of what it contains. I would be more happy with something like this: When a URI is served with a 200 response, agents may use the URI to address the IR that is returned by that 200 response, or use the URI to address a NIR described in the response (if a description exists). Publishers still need to support two distinct URIs if they want agents to have a more consistent interpretation. Thanks, James
