W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > July 2006

Re: Semantic content negotiation (was Re: expectations of vocabulary)

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:03:03 +0200
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd0607261003ha4c7898ue90da262cb7fb0aa@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Xiaoshu Wang" <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Cc: "Reto Bachmann-Gmür" <reto@gmuer.ch>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>

On 7/26/06, Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu> wrote:
> --Danny,
>
> > How does UPS deal with Accept-Language?
>
> I hope my last reply may clarify this.  But Accept-Language is not what you
> meant.  What you meant is perhaps more like Accept-Synonymy (not even the
> dialect as I wrote in last reply), don't you think?

I did mean Accept-Language -
"The Accept-Language request-header field is similar to Accept, but
restricts the set of natural languages that are preferred as a
response to the request." [1] i.e. UPS are willing to convey some
preference information free of charge. Whether or not the recipient is
willing to act on it is another matter.

This isn't quite the same as Accept-Synonymy, as there is no global
definition of synonymy. Different representations of the same resource
is all (as determined by the server).

I don't see a massive leap from that to what Reto suggested, something
like "The Accept-Vocabulary request-header field is similar to Accept,
but restricts the set of RDF vocabularies that are preferred as a
response to the request."

(I don't know either way if Accept-Vocabulary specifically is a good
idea, but it illustrates the point, there doesn't seem to be any
architectural obstacle to content negotiation at a semantic level).

Cheers,
Danny.

[1] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.4


-- 

http://dannyayers.com
Received on Wednesday, 26 July 2006 17:03:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:44 GMT