RE: web proper names

But that doesn't mean that the representation you
get back is a *description* of the thing denoted.

The resource denoted could be, e.g., a particular
ontology, and the RDF/XML returned is an expression
of (representation of) that ontology, *not* a description
of that ontology.

Eh?

Content negotation *cannot* be used to reliably
accomplish what URIQA seeks to provide.

And when you want a description in N-Triples, XTM,
TriX, N3, etc. how will you ask for it, if conneg
is already (improperly) busy doing something else?

Patrick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jon Hanna [mailto:jon@hackcraft.net]
> Sent: 21 September, 2004 14:45
> To: Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere); zednenem@psualum.com;
> daniel.oconnor@gmail.com
> Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: RE: web proper names
> 
> 
> > In my ideal world, one could ask
> > 
> > MGET / HTTP/1.1
> > Host: www.cnn.com
> > 
> > and get back an RDF description that would tell us what 
> <http://www.cnn.com> actually means...
> 
> In my real world, one can ask
> 
> GET / HTTP/1.1
> Host: www.cnn.com
> Accept: application/rdf+xml
> 
> OK, it doesn't work on that particular example now, but still.
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2004 13:01:35 UTC