Re: Browsers breaking content negotiation

> and dct:format adds
> support for some extra media types.

That's not the definition of dct:format.
It's meaning is not "is available as" but rather
"The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource."

Which sources do you find for your definition?

> So a more explicit (but not practical) example would be something like:
> 
>  <http://some.com/img/19f87c54-bb97-4aa7-8163-166e3858f45e>
> dct:format "image/jpeg", "application/xhtml+xml",
> "application/rdf+xml", "application/n-quads", "text/rdf+n3",
> "application/n-triples", "application/ld+json", "application/rdf+xml",
> "application/rdf+thrift", "text/turtle", "text/trig" .

I cannot think of any resource that can be both represented
as application/n-triples and image/jpeg,
unless that image/jpeg is a "screenshot" of the text or something
(but let's agree that is a pathological case).

In the more general case, no JPEG image can be represented as RDF;
rather, a document about that image can be represented as RDF.
So we are talking about two different resources:
– the image (can have representations: JPEG, GIF, PNG, …)
– metadata about the image (can have representations: HTML, Turtle, …)

In other words, the resource design as presented is wrong;
two different things are being conflated into one.

> Do your arguments still hold?

Yes.

Best,

Ruben

Received on Thursday, 9 February 2017 19:24:07 UTC