Thanks, Jeni. The RDF WG formally acknowledges this FPWD.
Regards, Dave -- http://about.me/david_wood On Jul 11, 2013, at 04:49, Jeni Tennison <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear public-lod, RDF WG, > > Some of you will have seen that the First Public Working Draft of "URLs in > Data" has been published by the TAG [1]. > > This document is the outcome of the call for change proposals [2] for the > TAG's 2005 decision on httpRange-14 [3]. > > The document purposefully does not address the issue of what a URI > 'identifies' or how to discover additional information about it (beyond best > practice that has been documented elsewhere). It aims instead to clarify the > circumstances in which different communities of practice may draw different > conclusions about the content of a document on the web, and how to avoid this > by having clear definitions for the properties you use when publishing data > that uses URIs. > > For RDF and linked data, the implication is that applications should focus on > the statements that are being asserted about a given URI in the data that > they have (from whatever source) to determine what to do. To avoid > misinterpretation and misuse, and particularly where there's the possibility > of ambiguity (eg 'license' or 'creator'), vocabulary authors should state > whether a given property applies to the content retrieved from the subject > URI or to something that content describes. > > The TAG does not intend to work further on these issues in the immediate > future, except to respond to and integrate comments on this document. Please > send any comments on the document to [email protected]. > > Cheers, > > Jeni > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/urls-in-data/ > [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/uddp/change-proposal-call.html > [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039.html > -- > Jeni Tennison > http://www.jenitennison.com/ > > > > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
