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 21:14:50 +0200
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd0607261214q4c97cf1cpc4e17cf5fe676404@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,
>
> > (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).
>
> Any specification must have semantics to drive certain actions.  The
> semantic domain dealt in HTTP protocol does not and should not overlap with
> the semantic domain of the RDF model.

They share names...

  The semantic domain of HTTP is
> Information Resources.  Each IR is treated as an atomic unit and HTTP GET
> worries how to get a representation of that resource across the network.
> Whether the representation is in what langauge and in what format does not
> break that the assumption that the resource is atomic.  Accept langauge,
> character encoding, Synonymy etc., is all fine because it does not break
> that assumption.  But if you extend the HTTP in a way that you will break
> the resource into various pieces,

But I'm not suggesting breaking the resource into pieces.  A single
resource can have multiple representations!!

An RSS 1.0 feed is a legitimate use of RDF over HTTP, yes? On Thursday
a given feed might contain statements about resources item1, item2,
item3. Friday it might contain statements about item3, item4, item5.
But they are both representations of the same resource. The fact that
the component parts of their representation varies is irrelevant.

In the same fashion, graphs A, B and C can legitimately be
representations of a *single* resource, even if C is the union of the
statements in A and B.

> It is a misguided argument to say: ... at a semantic level.

I accept that "semantic" used in this way is not a very good
description, but I think the intention is clear when contrasted with
the "syntax" of media types etc.

Without a
> clearly defined semantic domain, this kind of sentences can be used to argue
> for anything.  Is this what you want?

Slippery slope again, I'm not arguing for anything except that the
notion of "semantic content negotiation" over HTTP might be worth
exploring.

I guess we'll just have to agree to differ :-)

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

http://dannyayers.com
Received on Wednesday, 26 July 2006 19:15:02 GMT

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