W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > December 2009

Re: quick advice on content negotiation

From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:52:55 +0000
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: "kidehen@openlinksw.com" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, pedantic-web@googlegroups.com, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1260291175.1713.84.camel@ophelia2.g5n.co.uk>
On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 16:43 +0000, Nathan wrote:
> I've implemented content negotiation as follows:
> where we have a URI resource http://example.org/user/23
> when that URI is requested then content negotiation using the Accept
> header kicks in, if any of the RDF formats are specified and data
> exists then serialized RDF in the requested format is returned;
> 
> if one of the HTML types is requested then an HTML document
> (essentially the "page" is returned.
> 
> in addition adding the extension .n3 / .rdf to the uri causes content
> RDF to be returned instead.
> 
> passable and usable? 

An important question not answered in your message is: what is the URI
<http://example.org/user/23> supposed to identify?

If it identifies a particular person, then this behavious semantically
problematic. Why? Because a web server should never respond "200 OK" to
a request for a URI identifying a person, unless it intends to
physically chop the person up and pass him/her down the wire to the
receiving user agent.

If the URI <http://example.org/user/23> is supposed to identify, say, a
person's profile, and you have a different URI to represent the person
themselves (e.g. <http://example.org/user/23#me>) then the connection
negotiation setup you describe is fine.

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Tuesday, 8 December 2009 16:53:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 December 2009 16:53:32 GMT