Toby A Inkster wrote:
The issue included in the TF minutes is not really including @id and
@about on the same element - there's nothing wrong with that, but
rather trying to use the same fragment identifier (hence the same URI)
to refer to two separate things. (In the SKOS case, they use the same
URI to identify both a document fragment and an rdf:Property.)
Yes. And I maintain that the TAG has debated this for ages. I don't
pretend to understand the debate, but it seems to focus upon using
request Accept headers to determine what the requester wanted, and then
status codes (303? 304?) or responses to provide the values the
requester wanted (e.g., I want a document fragment that is text/html, or
I want authoritative representation of this URI iI have followed my
nose to as application/rdf+xml, or whatever).
I think that this basic issue of content negotiation / semantic
interpretation is WAY outside of the scope of RDFa. Second, I can't see
how this matters except in the most "how many angels are on the head of
this pin" sort of way. If what we are being asked to do is give best
practice guidance, then I think that we should defer to the experts on
semweb content negotiation. Surely that's not us?
--
Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota Inet: sh...@aptest.com
