W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Option 1 - HTTP 303 Re: Towards a TAG consideration of CURIEs

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:38:36 +0200
Message-Id: <072E1FBE-2FF0-4884-B56E-781652414145@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Misha Wolf <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>, www-tag@w3.org, semantic-web@w3.org, public-xg-mmsem@w3.org, newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>


On 10 Apr 2007, at 03:50, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

>
> On Apr 9, 2007, at 1:58 PM, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
>
>> I would recommend that each document be available in both HTML and  
>> RDF using content negotiation or just RDF with a style sheet that  
>> makes it legible, or just HTML with GRDDL.
>
> -1 for content negotiation. (very un-semantic web like to have non- 
> inspectable communications, and confusion about what a name=URI means)

Not a fair characterization of conneg. It would be implemented by  
having the (required!) 303 redirect point to either an HTML or RDF  
document based on client preferences. As Chimezie says, the HTML and  
RDF documents should point to each other.

Thus all communications are inspectable, and it's clear what the  
names mean -- there's one for the domain object, one for the HTML  
document, one for the RDF document.

> +1 for RDF + style sheet. (very semantic-web like to have knowledge  
> first, and presentation separated)

-1 for this option as it doesn't work for Google and friends.

Richard


>
> My 2c.
>
> -Alan
>
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2007 10:38:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:14 GMT