W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Uniform access to descriptions

From: Michaeljohn Clement <mj@mjclement.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:54:03 -0600
Message-ID: <47FFC1DB.1060906@mjclement.com>
To: wangxiao@musc.edu
CC: "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>

Hi Xiaoshu,

> We agree that there are legacy data, yes?  Let's make its URI x, whose
> owner is Joe.
> Case 1. Joe is lazy.
> Then, no LINK, no Conneg. Is this fair?
> Case 2: Joe is not lazy.
> (a) Joe makes LINK(x)=metadata.
> (b) Joes make Conneg(x)=metadata (can easily GET x Accept
> application/rdf+xml).

(b) would be wrong, because the metadata is not an alternative 
variant of the resource identified by x.

Surely there may be more than one application/rdf+xml resource that 
might be associated in some way with the resource identified by x, 
right?  It's impossible to distinguish between these by using conneg.

If the only purpose of the Link: header would be the same as the 
purpose of the HTML <link rel=alternate>, then surely (b) would be 
more relevant, but the Link: header can express other relations as 
is being discussed here, viz "describedBy".

The only way (b) can be correct here is if the result of a GET with 
Accept: application/rdf+xml is actually just a variant representation 
of the same resource.

Michaeljohn
Received on Friday, 11 April 2008 19:54:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:55 GMT