- From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:40:01 +0200
- To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Thomas Baker" <tbaker@tbaker.de>, "SW Best Practices" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Preliminary questions for the telecon from someone who's been quite off the debate lately. First I must say I've not yet recovered from the httpRange-14 resolution shock ... the kind of answer which makes me feel like I do not understand the question any more. But since everybody seems to have to live with that from now on, is a vocabulary manager supposed to master all subtleties of http protocol, GET, response code, redirect and the like necessary to understand this resolution? >From the viewpoint of one who does not care about process details, does Alistair's proposal means something different from the following? When I put in my browser http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#Concept I will get what I currently get at http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-skos-core-spec/#Concept instead of the current page of RDF code where the ressource is somewhere formally defined http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core In this case, what is the difference with Published Subjects, e.g. http://psi.oasis-open.org/iso/639/#fra which retrieves an human-readable resource, instead of the formal definition contained somewhere in e.g. http://psi.oasis-open.org/iso/639/639-core.rdf Or http://www.mondeca.com/system/publishing#Document which is formally defined in http://www.mondeca.com/system/publishing.rdf Sorry if this sounds too much naive, or missing the point altogether. Bernard > -----Message d'origine----- > De : public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org] > De la part de Dan Brickley > Envoyé : mardi 27 septembre 2005 13:54 > À : Miles, AJ (Alistair) > Cc : Thomas Baker; SW Best Practices; public-esw-thes@w3.org > Objet : Re: [VM] Telecon on Tuesday, 27 September > > > > Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote: > > >Hi Tom, all, > > > >Ahead of telecon today, here's a short note re intentions for SKOS Core URI > dereferencing. > > > >Currently SKOS Core does the following... > > > >All property & class URIs follow the pattern: > > > >http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#localName > > > >A GET against the URI http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core returns a message > with 'Content-type: application/rdf+xml' (irrespective of what content type(s) > the client asked for) and response code 200. > > > >To bring into line with FOAF & DCMI, I would like to propose a change to this > dereferencing policy. I propose the following: > > > >1. A GET against http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core with 'Accept: > application/rdf+xml' redirects (via response code 303) to the latest snapshot > of the SKOS Core RDF description (currently > http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/history/2005-03-31). > > > >(This ensures that provenance of RDF statements about SKOS Core classes & > props is always a historical (date-stamped) snapshot, allowing run-time > distinction between 'versions'.) > > > >2. A GET against http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core with an accept field that > is not 'application/rdf+xml' redirects (via response code 303) to the latest > version of the SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification > (http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-skos-core-spec/) > > > >(This ensures that a click on the URI of a SKOS Core prop or class in a > browser will take you to the right bit of the spec.) > > > >How's that look? > > > > > ...and gets against URIs of specific terms? > > Dan >
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2005 12:40:31 UTC