Sarven Capadisli

RDF 1.1 says that RDFa in markup languages qualifies it as RDF. If there is any information in there that's not part of an RDF graph, then it doesn't suddenly...

The intended state of an HTML+RDFa representation is what corresponds to an RDF graph. Round-tripping is a non-issue because information that's not marked in RDFa is neither intended or expected...

@TallTed , >Really? I don't think many if any HTML+RDFa creators would agree with you. Certainly, I would find it a very large problem if my HTML+RDFa documents were to...

>So, HTML+RDFa is an RDF Source iff it is fully represented by the hosted RDF. If it contains information that is not represented by the hosted RDF, it is neither...

1. Agree. 2. Agree, server is not prohibited (whether as a representation of a container or as an independent resource with that name). 3. Agree. 4. Disagree, only the RDF...

>HTML+RDFa is embellished HTML (hence, HTML plus RDFa), it is not embellished RDF (which would be RDFa plus HTML). Pardon me but as accurate as that may be it is...

>You're effectively asserting that the RDF content is the only thing of value in HTML+RDFa documents, and that the creators of those documents have acceded to that assertion by using...

Ted, masterful hairsplitting =) >You are taking this description from RDF 1.1 as both normative and formal, when it is neither. I'm completely taking it in good faith because of...

>how can we practically resolve the present issue with your interpretation? >>If an implementation accepts text/html on a resource eg. /, with Accept and Content-Type, I prefer this (even as...

>However, this can't be used for discovery, because it would require the entire URI space to be covered by storages and that may not be the case. I don't quite...