W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2001

RE: ContentType negotiation

From: Andy Powell <a.powell@ukoln.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 22:21:43 +0100 (BST)
To: RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SO4.4.05.10104231351580.17723-100000@lamin.ukoln.ac.uk>
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Jonathan Borden 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).

One other issue with this approach is that it makes two resources ('the
resource' and 'the RDF about the resource') available at the same URL.
Both of these are (different) resources and each may have other RDF
descriptions about them.  Is it a problem to make both resources available
at the same URL or is everything OK provided that they can both also be
identified separately with their own URI?  Or doesn't it matter?

Andy
--
Distributed Systems and Services
UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK       a.powell@ukoln.ac.uk
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell      Voice: +44 1225 323933
Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/   Fax: +44 1225 826838
Received on Monday, 23 April 2001 17:21:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:49 GMT