- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:05:51 -0800
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
On 12/6/17 10:45 AM, mail@makxdekkers.com wrote: > Karen, > >> Not all access to APs will be through content negotiation, AFAIK, so we have to consider >> other access avenues, such as a document at is located on a web site, profiles in wikis, etc. > > The expressions of the profile might be at > > http://example.org/profiles/xyz/profile.rdf > http://example.org/profiles/xyz/profile.xml > http://example.org/profiles/xyz/profile.json > > So it would be possible to access them without content negotiation. But I guess, we need to consider content negotiation because our deliverable is called "Content Negotiation by Application Profile" > >> If there is a "concept" AP it needs to be something that can be represented, >> thus is not entirely abstract. > > In my mind, it *is* "abstract" in the same sense that FRBR Work is an abstract entity. Makx, the FRBR work is proving to be very difficult to implement precisely because it is so hard to be precise about an abstraction. If the AP is "abstract" in that sense it has no actual existence in any written or coded form, which means that it cannot be "converted" to rdf, html, xml, or whatever. It is ethereal, an essentially non-existent as any "thing". I don't know how we can work with such an entity. kc > > Makx. > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal) skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2017 22:06:15 UTC