RE: A problem RE: Dereferencing SKOS Core

Yep, I just checked FOAF, the resource identified by 

http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/

is content negotiable - you can get both text/html and application/rdf+xml representations.

---
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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Miles, AJ 
> (Alistair)
> Sent: 22 March 2005 14:38
> To: Benjamin Nowack
> Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: RE: A problem RE: Dereferencing SKOS Core 
> 
> 
> 
> > >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 15:19:23 UTC