W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > November 2011

Re: different publish RDF in section 2.4.2

From: Mo McRoberts <mo.mcroberts@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:34:12 +0000
Cc: Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, WebID Incubator Group WG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F933F5E3-38E9-4680-AFBB-7F5D9CE8E796@bbc.co.uk>
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>

On 23 Nov 2011, at 13:09, Henry Story wrote:

>> 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.
> 
> that's in the section
> 
> http://bblfish.net/tmp/2011/11/23/index-respec.html#processing-the-webid-profile

Ah, okay. The sentence in §2.4 doesn't really stand out.

It currently reads:

“The encoding of this graph is theortically immaterial to the protocol, so long as a well known mapping from the format of the representation to such a graph can be found automatically. In order to improve interoperability at this time it is suggested that WebID provider publish the graph of relations at least in one of RDFa [XHTML-RDFA] or RDF/XML [RDF-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR], though he may publish it in a number of formats to increase the usability of his site to different agents using content negotiations [SWBP-VOCAB-PUB].”

Perhaps amend to something like the below, might be clearer?

“The protocol does not depend on any particular serialisation of the graph, provided that agents are able to parse that serialisation and obtain the graph automatically. HTTP Content Negotiation [SWBP-VOCAB-PUB] can be employed to aid in publication and discovery of multiple distinct serialisations of the same graph, and it is suggested at this time that publishers serialise as one of RDFa [XHTML-RDFA] or RDF/XML [RDF-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR]. 

Irrespective of whether content negotiation can be employed or use of RDFa, if an HTML representation of the WebID profile is published, it is suggested that the provider uses the HTML <link> element to allow discovery of the various alternate representations of the graph which may be available:

<html>
<head>
<link rel="alternate" type="application/rdf+xml" href="profile.rdf"/>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/turtle" href="profile.ttl"/>
</head>
<body> ...  </body>
</html>

Using the <link> element in this manner aids in robustness: if the HTML representation does not serialise the graph as RDFa, or if content negotiation is not available, an agent will still be able to obtain a machine-readable serialisation of the graph.”

(and then remove the equivalent portion from the end of §2.4.2)

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 13:34:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 23 November 2011 13:34:46 GMT