W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2006

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

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 14:56:36 -0400
To: "'Richard Newman'" <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>
Cc: "'Semantic Web'" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000f01c6b409$e2534090$0c241780@bioxiao>


> >> (b) most HTTP URIs do not dereference to a useful RDF 
> representation;
> >
> > So what?

If it is not dereferable to an appropriate RDF, the agent won't be able to
handle the information.  But if they intends to make the agent to be able to
do so.  They will.  That is my point!  

> Using fragment identifiers makes the ontology the resource 
> and the terms fragments of it, which gives you better odds of 
> getting some RDF back, given a document-oriented HTTP server 
> like Apache. Usually the resource will be the ontology URI.
> Using slashes coins a new resource for each term, which means 
> there is unlikely to be RDF available unless you explicitly 
> request the ontology URI.

What I can say. http://foo.com/bar#a and http://foo.com/bar#b is completely
two different resoruces.  Just as rdfs:subPropertyOf is completely different
from rdfs:subClassOf.  

Whether a #fragment identifier is dererencible is DEPENDENT on its base URI.
By your logic, http://foo.com/bar is less dereferenable than
http://foo.com/bar#abc? Isn't it an absurd assertion?  

Let's stop this, it once again stray away from the original topic.

Received on Sunday, 30 July 2006 18:56:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:52 UTC