- From: Karol Szczepański <karol.szczepanski@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 19:50:58 +0100
- To: "Tomasz Pluskiewicz" <tomasz@t-code.pl>, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
- Cc: "Hydra" <public-hydra@w3.org>
Tomasz I think RDF + Hydra does not stand against the paradigm by Mr Fielding. Consider a media type of image/jpeg. Client implementing support for that media type must understand it's internal structure and it does imply several data types (Start Of Image, Start of Frame header, custom extensions like EXIF, etc.). These are not exposed via the media type directly, but are implied. Same with RDF + Hydra - the format doesn't expose the server's internally used types (it can, but it's not mandatory). Other thing is that whether i.e. text/turtle is enough to tell the client that the payload is RDF + Hydra. I think that Content-Type header with Link rel=profile header is enough for the client to stay in line with the rule described by Mr Fielding. Regards Karol
Received on Friday, 18 December 2015 18:51:18 UTC