Re: newbie question about sparql and 200

Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> 
> 
> On 18 Aug 2008, at 15:35, Dan Connolly wrote:
>> cwm used to equate a document with
>> a graph that it got from a document, but that turned out to be
>> a pretty limiting constraint, so we introduced the log:semantics
>> relationship between them.
> 
> This is interesting, Dan. Can you share some details? What issues did 
> you bump into when you treated HTTP documents and graphs as equivalent?
> 
> (Not pushing any particular POV here, just curious about your experiences.)

Equally curious: what are the pros and cons of defining log:semantics as 
a functional property? ie. can http://danbri.org/ have two different 
values for it? (I'm thinking about content and language negotiation, as 
well as natural changes over time).

cheers,

Dan

--
http://danbri.org/