- From: Lee Jonas <lee.jonas@cakehouse.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 12:17:31 +0100
- To: "'Jonathan Borden'" <jborden@mediaone.net>, RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@mediaone.net] wrote: >Aaron Swartz wrote: > >> >> >> Lee Jonas <ljonas@acm.org> wrote: >> >> > The suggestion is: one possible way to associate RDF metadata with a >> > resource is via content negotiation - i.e. negotiate for the >> 'text/rdf+xml' >> > or 'application/rdf+xml' content type of a resource to get back an rdf >> > document containing the resource's metadata. >> > >> > Is this a good idea, or just abuse of multiviews / typemaps? >> >> I'd think this would be acceptable, and is in fact what I plan to >> implement >> myself. I believe that the W3C has even published a NOTE which uses this >> technique. >> > >Acceptable to whom? Content negotiation as it is currently implemented and >deployed is not acceptable to those people who don't have control over their >ISP's server (that's alot of people). > >-Jonathan BTW, I don't have control over my web space provider's server, yet they are more than happy to change my site's options to allow 'multiviews'. That said, I agree it is an issue for others who are not so fortunate. However, I don't suggest this should be the only way to associate RDF with a resource. In summary there should be 3 ways: 1) A 'application/rdf+xml' (or 'text/rdf+xml' or whatever) "view" of the resource - retrievable via content negotiation. 2) A link from the resource to external metadata descriptions of it. 3) Metadata descriptions embedded within the resource itself. regards Lee
Received on Monday, 23 April 2001 07:17:48 UTC