W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > February 2010

Re: protocol negotiation

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:04:30 +0100
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd1002281104o7d2e7809u474ee14490ebb7d2@mail.gmail.com>
To: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Henry, while I see nothing wrong with using a link, something like a
protocol change does feel like it should be a bit lower down the stack - in
fact just as Graham suggests (a header I can't remember seeing before -
really must read the manual sometimes).

On 28 February 2010 19:23, Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org> wrote:

> I may be getting this all wrong, but HTTP upgrade?
>
> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.42
>


"Upgrade" sounds a bit strong, but that's exactly the kind of thing I had in
mind.

Just to clarify (my post was a bit late-night), I was imagining the scenario
where you have two agents/services wishing to talk with each other, and http
would be enough to do the identifiers and initiate comms, but assuming other
protocols were available. xmpp being a good example, in the extreme case the
agents/services might be running in the same VM so direct method calls might
even be in scope.

As an intermediate thing between such protocols, the recent work around
Activity Streams (http://activitystrea.ms/)  is quite interesting - big
crossover with RDF, the model is being reinvented mostly done using the Atom
format. I could imagine a bit of XSLT/XQuery in the pipeline were it to
connect with a triplestore.

Cheers,
Danny.

>
>
>


-- 
http://danny.ayers.name
Received on Sunday, 28 February 2010 19:05:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:34 GMT