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

RE: Uniform access to descriptions

From: Sebastien Lambla <seb@serialseb.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:32:06 +0100
Message-ID: <BLU102-DS188E9EEB28AD6E83E73E7B5E60@phx.gbl>
To: "'Booth, David \(HP Software - Boston\)'" <dbooth@hp.com>, "'Pat Hayes'" <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: <wangxiao@musc.edu>, "'Tim Berners-Lee'" <timbl@w3.org>, "'Michaeljohn Clement'" <mj@mjclement.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>

>>
If :MysteryType is awww:InformationResource, then there is no problem.  But
if :MysteryType is sumo:Human, and sumo:Human is disjoint with
awww:InformationResource, then there is a URI collision, because in essense,
the 200 response implicitly declared URI http://example/mycat as denoting an
awww:InformationResource, whereas the RDF content declared URI
http://example/mycat as denoting a sumo:Human.  In such case the URI owner
has done something wrong, but whether you consider the error to be a misuse
of content negotiation or something else is a matter of interpretation:
however you choose to atribute the cause, the parts don't fit together.
<<

What if the 200 in question returned a Content-Location: /mycat.html,
different than the Uri, so that you could assert your 200 <=> IR on
/mycat.html? RDF could then describe /mycat quite happily.

Seb
Received on Sunday, 20 April 2008 20:34:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:56 GMT