W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2009

RE: Question on the boundaries of content negotiation in the context of the Web of Data

From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:24:21 +0000
To: Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>
CC: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <233101CD2D78D64E8C6691E90030E5C8293C58940C@GVW1120EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Hello Ian,

From: Ian Davis [mailto:me@iandavis.com]
Sent: 13 February 2009 12:14
To: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
Cc: Michael Hausenblas; www-tag@w3.org
Subject: Re: Question on the boundaries of content negotiation in the context of the Web of Data

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com<mailto:skw@hp.com>> wrote:

> If not, why not?

The 'house' depicted in the PNG appears to have a red roof. The redness of the roof (amongst may other properties of the 'house') are not apparent in the turtle.

Surely the turtle document is allowed to be an incomplete description, especially under open world assumptions.

Sure... but we're punning here on the word document (representation or resource sense). The bits that came over the wire are awww:representation of a graph and of an image that either depict or describe a common subject (a house), but neither graph nor the picture are that subject - and neither are their awww:representations awww:representations of the same thing... one is an awww:representation of a graph whilst the other is of a picture.
 Would you make the same comment if I content negotiated a grayscale version of the same image?

No... provided you were speaking about awww:representations of a (the same) picture/image... lo-fi would be fine,

Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Friday, 13 February 2009 12:29:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:00 UTC