W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Content negotiation for Turtle files

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 11:59:04 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK4ZFVGRnknUtz2rgN8GwRXNJ5WRCtDNpuO6ejwsYm1oG-+kdA@mail.gmail.com>
To: chris@codex.net.au
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Linking Open Data <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi Chris

2013/2/6 Chris Beer <chris@codex.net.au>

> Bernard, Ivan
> (At last! Something I can speak semi-authoritatively on ;P )
> @ Bernard - no - there is no reason to go back if you do not want to, and
> every reason to serve both formats plus more.

More ??? Well, I was heading the other way round actually for sake of
simplicity. As said before I've used RDF/XML for years despite all
criticisms, and was happy with it (the devil you know etc). What I
understand of the current trend is that to ease RDF and linked data
adoption we should promote now this simple, both human-readable and
machine-friendly publication syntax (Turtle). And having tried it for a
while, I now begin to be convinced enough as to adopt it in publication -
thanks to continuing promotion by Kingsley among others :)

And now you tell me I should still bother to provide n other formats,
RDF/XML and more. I thought I was about to simplify my life, you tell me I
have to make the simple things, *plus* the more complex ones as before.

> Your comment about UA's complaining about a content negotiation issue is
> key to what you're trying to do here. I'd like to provide some clear
> guidance or suggestions back, but first, if possible, can you please post
> the http request headers for the four (and any others you have) user
> agents you've used to attempt to request your rdf+xml files and which have
> either choked or accepted the .ttl file.

I can try to find out how do that, although remind you I can discuss
languages, ontologies, syntax and semantics of data at will, but when it
comes to protocols and Webby things it's not really my story, so I don't
promise anything.

AND : there's NO rdf+xml file in that case, only text/turtle. And that's
exactly the point : can/should one do that, or not? Do I have to pass the
message to adopters : publish RDF in Turtle, it's a very cool an simple
syntax (oh but BTW don't forget to add HTML documentation, and also
RDF/XML, and JSON, and multilingual variants, and proper content
negotiation ...) ... well, OK, let's be clear about it if we have to do
that ... but it looks like a non-starter for adoption of Turtle.

> Extra points if you can also post
> the server's response headers.

Same remark as above.

Thanks for your time


*Bernard Vatant
Vocabularies & Data Engineering
Tel :  + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59
Skype : bernard.vatant
Blog : the wheel and the hub <http://blog.hubjects.com/>
*Mondeca**          **                   *
3 cité Nollez 75018 Paris, France
Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews>

Meet us at Documation <http://www.documation.fr/> in Paris, March 20-21
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 10:59:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:29 UTC