W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > December 2011

Re: Graph-State Resources (was Re: graphs and documents Re: [ALL] agenda telecon 14 Dec)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:46:29 -0800
Message-ID: <4EEFE8F5.6060203@topquadrant.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 12/19/2011 4:46 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2011, at 4:32 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't think so. log:semantics depends on retrieval of a representation, and the result of that action may be different for different clients with different configuration, different network location, or different access credentials.
>>
>> Content negotiation by language is a nice example where the same client in the same network location and same access credentials would receive different representations, and hence different log:semantics, based on user configuration.
> ? IS it obvious that it would be different? The object of log:semantics is the RDF graph that the retrieved representation parses into, not the representation itself. Are there cases where content negotiation would give a different RDF graph from the same resource? (Genuine question, not rhetoric.)
>
>

Yes.

e.g. put a foo.rdf and a foo.ttl in a directory on an appropriately 
configured apache web server
ensure the two files contain non-isomorphic graphs, one in RDF/XML and 
one in Turtle

retrieve using two different user agents (browser etc) one configured to 
prefer RDF/XML the other to prefer Turtle


Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2011 01:46:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:46 GMT