Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-metadata - Re: Link to external RDF

cc-metadata AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: discussion of the Creative Commons Metadata work

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Chris Croome <chris AT webarchitects.co.uk>
  • To: "'cc-metadata AT lists.ibiblio.org'" <cc-metadata AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Link to external RDF
  • Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:07:47 +0100

Hi

On Tue 27-Apr-2004 at 10:47:53AM -0400, Bullock, Larry A wrote:
> It looks like you should be able to link to an external rdf
> document (which would lower the html file size).
>
> It also appears as if the proper format for the link might be is:
>
> <link rel="meta" type="application/rdf+xml" title="Creative
> Commons License" href="(URL)" />

Yep, that would do the trick :-)

> However, I would like to confirm the following:
>
> Is the rel really "meta" or can anything else be put in here?

Anything can go there, also multiple things -- it's a space
seperated list, so you could have:

rel="meta creativecommons"

For more info see:

http://www.subotnik.net/html/link.html

And for a full list of link types that have been used:

http://fantasai.tripod.com/qref/Appendix/LinkTypes/alphindex.html

> It seems to make sense to use the Copyright one to me.

Yes... but since this is in use already for linking to human
readable copyright pages I think it might not be ideal to start
using it to link to machine readable code...

> Also, the example on
> http://creativecommons.org/technology/metadata/extend#html uses a
> *.rdf filename for the example. Wouldn't it make more sense to
> use a *.xml name (since most modern browsers have some idea what
> to do with that) or is this something that only specific
> applications (rdf reader) should be viewing?

The file extension does make a difference for broken browsers that
can't manage to read the mime type of a resource from it's HTTP
headers (IE). I still serve RDF as application/xml since there are
still application that can't cope with application/rdf+xml (Mozilla
was (still is?) one example of this).

If you want the file to open as a xml document everywhere then .xml
and application/xml is probably safest, if you want to use emerging
standards that are not quite standards yet (I don't think
application/rdf+xml has been approved yet?) then use .rdf and
application/rdf+xml.

Chris

--
Chris Croome <chris AT webarchitects.co.uk>
web design http://www.webarchitects.co.uk/
web content management http://mkdoc.com/




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page