W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2005

Re: SemWeb Non-Starter -- Distributed URI Discovery

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:16:15 +1000
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, dviner@apache.org
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.so0bxdgbw5l938@researchsft>

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 15:39:45 +1000, Patrick Stickler  
<patrick.stickler@nokia.com> wrote:

> This is an interesting solution.  I definitely agree that it would  
> restrict
> the URI creator/originator's freedom.  However, what if we just used  
> another
> feature of HTTP to handle this?  I'm thinking of the Accept HTTP header.
> Here's a snippet from the rfc  
> (http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2068/rfc2068)
>  "
> The Accept request-header field can be used to specify certain media
>    types which are acceptable for the response. Accept headers can be
>    used to indicate that the request is specifically limited to a small
>    set of desired types, as in the case of a request for an in-line
>    image.
> "
>  I think it should be feasible to issue this sort of request:
>  GET /food/blah HTTP/1.1
> Host: example.com
> Accept: application/rdf+xml

Patrick replied
>  Not to just jump in and jump out calously, but this has been
> explored quite a bit for quite some time and content negotiation
> is simply not the correct mechanism for this.
>  C.f. the FAQ section of http://swdev.nokia.com/uriqa/URIQA.html ...
>  Patrick

I'm not so sure. I can see the problem if you see the world through URIQA  
glasses, but I think outside of that it is not a bad answer.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile                      Fundacion Sidar
charles@sidar.org   +61 409 134 136    http://www.sidar.org
Received on Sunday, 10 April 2005 08:16:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:13 GMT