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

RE: Re[2]: AW: Content negotiation flamewar (was: Re: "Hash URIs" and content negotiation)

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 23:22:10 -0500
To: "'Max Voelkel'" <voelkel@fzi.de>, "'Semantic Web'" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000601c707a4$74518900$1e241780@bioxiao>

> As defined in the URI spec, we send only the URI 
> http://example.com/resources (of course using 
> content-negotiation). So if we are a browser, we get back 
> HTML, scroll down to "#Bob", if defined, done.
> If  we  are a semantic web agent, we Accept: 
> application/rdf+xml and get back an RDF/XML  file.  We  parse 
>  it an look up statements about bob. We can ignore all other 
> statements which are not directly or indirectly connected to bob.

It is interesting from the discussion that it seems that the 303 response
pattern is applicable to only a subset of HTTP URIs.  HTTP URI with the
fragement identifier shouldn't and cannot comply.  Then what about the HTTP
URIs with query parameters? Should http://example.com/resources?name=bob
uses a 303 or not? I guess it would be yes?  But why?

I assume that a namespace document is an information resource. (At least
from what I just checked, the rdf namespace comes back a 200). It is both
interesting and confusing to think that a "fragment" of an information
document can be a non-information resource. I know that I am playing the
word "fragment", but somethings seems peculiar here about the demarcation of
IR vs non-IR.  Is the distinction arbitrary, i.e., derived from the
specifications, or is it a reflection of the real world?

Xiaoshu    
Received on Tuesday, 14 November 2006 04:26:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:12 GMT