Re: different publish RDF in section 2.4.2

On 23 Nov 2011, at 12:41, Henry Story wrote:

> 
> On 23 Nov 2011, at 13:34, Dominik Tomaszuk wrote:
> 
>> On 23.11.2011 13:25, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>> On 11/23/11 6:00 AM, Dominik Tomaszuk wrote:
>>>> 1) 'type="rel" type="application/rdf+xml"' is not valid, it should be:
>>>> rel="meta" type="application/rdf+xml"
>>> I think its an "alternative representation" relation i.e., <link
>>> rel="alternate" type={RDFformat} href={ResourceURL} ... /> .
>> This interpretation is possible. Now it is only link to RDF/XML. What about Turtle?
>> 
>> <link rel="alternate" type="text/turtle" href="profile.ttl"/>
>> or
>> <script type="text/turtle" src="profile.ttl"></script>
>> ?
> 
> yes, you can do that, but since rdf/xml is a MUST that is why we put that there at the moment,
> and not every other format - but of course nothing stops people from doing it.
> 
> Perhaps it would be good to add the mime type for each format at the top of the format anyway, just
> to help people implementing this, so they don't need to look around so much.

It'll be used by people as a pattern, no doubt, so doesn't hurt to cover the bases, especially as a turtle representation is included in the spec.

Presumably an endpoint which uses conneg to serve RDF/XML when the resource is requested is a reasonable alternative?

(assuming the consuming application indicates that it accepts application/rdf+xml [which I guess it should, as RDF/XML is a required part of the WebID spec])

rel=“alternate” is, after all, a crutch for when the server hasn't sent a resource in the format you wanted in the first place, so good if the situation where it can do that from the outset is covered.

M.

-- 
Mo McRoberts - Technical Lead - The Space,
0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E,
Project Office: Room 7083, BBC Television Centre, London W12 7RJ

Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2011 13:02:12 UTC