W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > August 2009

Ignore Re: "suboptions" of Option 7

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:27:39 +0100
Message-ID: <4A8AC86B.6080705@deri.org>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
CC: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
sorry, wrong list, my address book played me tricks with auto-completion :-)

Axel Polleres wrote:
> As a lightweight version of Option 7, which reuires content negotiation 
> to receive the RDF service description on the endpoint URL, there 
> occurred some sub-options in the discussion today, which I try to 
> summarize below:
> 
> Option 7' (RDFa): If HTML is served instead of RDF at the endpoint 
> location (e.g. a query form), then allow it to have implicitly the RDF 
> of the service description in the form of RDFa
> 
>  con: RDFa needs to be parsed/extracted to get RDF out
> 
> Option 7'' (LINK element)
> If HTML is served instead of RDF at the endpoint location (e.g. a query 
> form), then allow it to have a <link> element in the HTML head pointing 
> to the service description
> 
>  con: needs 2 requests (which originally was the strongest argument 
> against Option 1)
> 
> Option 7''': either of Option 7'/7'' in combination with the pure Option 
> 7, i.e. if content type HTML is requested, require anyways Option 7' or 
> 7'', when content type RDF is requested, serve description directly.
> 
> Axel
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, 
Galway
email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 15:28:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 August 2009 15:28:15 GMT