- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 11:56:25 -0600
- To: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 11:44 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: > On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 01:27 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: > [...] > > I added another test to sorta show why sq1 has > > an empty result: > > > > <#sq1a> a :Test; > > dc:title "explain sq1 result: the namespace document has > > no/empty GRDDL result"; > > :description "explain sq1 result: the namespace document has > > no/empty GRDDL result"; > > :inputDocument <sq1ns.xml>; > > :outputDocument <sq1-output.rdf>; > > . > > That one is actually more directly relevant to the discussion we had > today. I'm considering making it a separate issue, in order to > facilitate interactions with the TAG. > > As a data point, I asked cwm what it thinks, and it does > not see any triples there because it does not specify > application/xml among the MIME types that it's willing > to accept when it GETs the representation, and www.w3.org > chooses to give a 406 error (note that per the HTTP > spec, it MAY give a 200 OK response with application/xml > in this case). > > > $ python $swap/cwm.py http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/sq1ns As another data point, here the server gives 200 OK with application/xml rather than 406... http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2005/grddl-ts/sq1ns.xml?content-type=application/xml and cwm and rdflib both treat that XML content as real RDF, not a picture of RDF. i.e. they answer "yes" to today's poll. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 1 November 2006 17:56:38 UTC