- From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:37:43 -0000
- To: "Benjamin Nowack" <bnowack@appmosphere.com>
- Cc: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
> >I have a suggestion: we make the resource > http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core > >content negotiable. If a client asks for 'text/html' then > the resource serves > >up some html that carries the title 'SKOS Core Vocabulary > Namespace Document'. > >If the client asks for 'application/rdf+xml' then they get > what they currently > >get, which some RDF/XML. > I'm not sure. I'd try to avoid (directly) serving two different > representations at a single URI. AFAIK this type of URI overloading > is still considered bad practice (VM TF again?). maybe using a linked > stylesheet to provide an htmly view in a browser could be an option to > only have a single document at that URI. Or redirecting to another > URI, based on the accept headers sent, but I'm not sure if there's a > recommendation how to implement the latter option already.. Thanks for your comments Benjamin, I'm still not sure whether a content-negotiable resource that serves both RDF/XML and HTML representations is considered good or bad practice either. It has been argued that (if set up correctly) both representations carry essentially the same information content, and hence the SKOS Core URI is not actually overloaded. I wonder what others think? And of course there are both philosophical and practical considerations, which may be in tension. What's FOAF doing currently? I heard a rumour danbri had set up some content-negotiation for FOAF. Cheers, Al. > >--- > >Alistair Miles > >Research Associate > >CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory > >Building R1 Room 1.60 > >Fermi Avenue > >Chilton > >Didcot > >Oxfordshire OX11 0QX > >United Kingdom > >Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk > >Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440 > >
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2005 14:38:15 UTC