- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:07:53 +0000
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- CC: "kidehen@openlinksw.com" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, pedantic-web@googlegroups.com, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Toby Inkster wrote: > On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 16:43 +0000, Nathan wrote: >> I've implemented content negotiation as follows: >> where we have a URI resource http://example.org/user/23 >> when that URI is requested then content negotiation using the Accept >> header kicks in, if any of the RDF formats are specified and data >> exists then serialized RDF in the requested format is returned; >> >> if one of the HTML types is requested then an HTML document >> (essentially the "page" is returned. >> >> in addition adding the extension .n3 / .rdf to the uri causes content >> RDF to be returned instead. >> >> passable and usable? > > An important question not answered in your message is: what is the URI > <http://example.org/user/23> supposed to identify? <http://example.org/user/23> identifies the sioc:User which sioc:account_of <http://example.org/user/23#person> the #person data is also included in the reply to a request on /user/23 thanks to using the fragment. > If it identifies a particular person, then this behavious semantically > problematic. Why? Because a web server should never respond "200 OK" to > a request for a URI identifying a person, unless it intends to > physically chop the person up and pass him/her down the wire to the > receiving user agent. as above > If the URI <http://example.org/user/23> is supposed to identify, say, a > person's profile, and you have a different URI to represent the person > themselves (e.g. <http://example.org/user/23#me>) then the connection > negotiation setup you describe is fine. as mentioned we use #person (like you said #me); and in the case of html for profiles the request kicks on to /person/23 which isn't used as a resource identifier but is the URL of an html page which is the users profile page. thanks for the reply toby; taking from this that the setup aforementioned is okay. many regards, nathan
Received on Tuesday, 8 December 2009 17:08:42 UTC