James,

On 24 Mar 2012, at 00:38, James Leigh wrote:
> 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>

Yes, absolutely. Interestingly, if someone does publish something documents 
like that they can easily ensure that the document is interpreted as an 
information resource by adding a describedby link (which does have built-in 
semantics in RDFa 1.1):

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<base href="http://example.org/me"/>
<link rel="stylesheet" resource="style.css"/>
<link rel="describedby" resource=""/>
<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.

How is "let it disregard the statement 'this is an information resource'" is 
the same as "don't infer that it's an information resource". I don't see how it 
makes sense to infer something that you later disregard?

> 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.


Can I just cast that into the language used by the rest of the proposal? What 
about:

        when documentation is served with a 200 response from a probe
        URI and does not contain a 'describedby' statement, some agents 
        (including the publisher) might use it to identify the documentation
        and others a non-information resource. Publishers still need to 
        provide support for two distinct URIs if they want to enable more
        consistent use of the URI.

How does that sound?

Thanks,

Jeni
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com


Reply via email to