- From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <swlists-040405@champin.net>
- Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:01:24 +0100
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- CC: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
btw, did you notice that URIs of W3C recommendations do not do any conneg? Shouldn't http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/ redirect to http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/ rather than serving the same content with a different ETag (preventing efficient caching)? pa Le 27/10/2009 00:24, Toby Inkster a écrit : > On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 23:06 +0100, Raphaël Troncy wrote: >> We had a conversation with Tim Berners Lee during this workshop that >> pretty much agrees with what Toby just wrote below ... while I was >> arguing than nobody has formally defined what is the 'sameness' of two >> representations of a resource. The accessibility community has defined >> the notion of "equivalent" when the two representations both fulfill >> the same function or purpose upon presentation to the user, and in an >> accessibility context, it is fine to say that a text is another >> representation of an audio resource ... > > My personal answer is that two responses are "the same enough" if you, > as a publisher, would be happy to publish them under the same URI > without any explicit way of referring to them individually. If you, as > the publisher, would be satisfied never being sure which representation > a consumer will get, then they're OK to share a URI. >
Received on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 10:02:15 UTC