- From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
- Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 23:25:06 +0200
- To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Cc: LDP WG <public-ldp@w3.org>, Martin P Pain <martinpain@uk.ibm.com>
- Message-ID: <CA+OuRR9hNP6nGAtcjDR-dL05b8vJW9Jbp9PyaPgx5aMzL2qeLw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi all, I still think the notion of "profile" [1] could be used to convey this kind of additional information without introducing a brand new layer to the web architecture. Another idea could be to consider the different kind of patches as media types, and to consider the different "surface syntaxes" (Turtle, RDF/XML, ...) as Content-encoding [2] from the point of view of HTTP ? pa [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6906 [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#page-118 On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> wrote: > hello martin. > > just commenting based on the last 10 years... > > On 2013-09-20 02:04 , Martin P Pain wrote: > > How about defining an HTTP header similar to "Content-Type" and > > "Accept", but which doesn't specify the format that the body is > > represented in, but instead specifies what that format is being used to > > express (e.g. in RDF, the vocabulary/ies in use). > > this idea pops up with great regularity, just using different names. the > last proposal before this one coined "Concept-Type" to go with > "Content-Type", i think. > > web architecture is an implementation of REST, and REST is about > representations; that's the architectural style the web has been > engineered around. all that matters are representations, and what they > mean is not relevant for the hypermedia fabric. i don't think there's > any easy way to change that, and at least for the previous incarnations > of that idea, they never went anywhere. my guess is that you run into > fundamental mismatches in too many places. just adding one or two > headers might look like a quick fix in the beginning, but then it > probably starts getting more complicated once you start looking into the > details. > > without trying to stir up the 20th iteration of the "web vs semweb > perma-debate", i would just recommend to dig into a couple of archives > and try to find the previous approaches in that direction. it may be > useful to find out where they went, or why they stopped. > > cheers, > > dret. > > -- > erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu - tel:+1-510-2061079 | > | UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool) | > | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret | > >
Received on Monday, 23 September 2013 21:25:34 UTC