- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:31:10 +0000
- To: Mark Baker <mark@coactus.com>
- CC: "kidehen@openlinksw.com" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, pedantic-web@googlegroups.com, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Mark Baker wrote: > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: >> in addition adding the extension .n3 / .rdf to the uri causes content >> RDF to be returned instead. > > How is that information communicated to the world? Is it documented > somewhere, or expressed in-band? If not the latter, then I'd say > that's not passable because, from a REST POV it's not respecting the > hypermedia constraint. I'd suggest returning a Link header using the > "alternate" relation type, e.g. > > GET /user/23 HTTP/1.1 > Host: example.org > Accept: application/rdf+xml > > --> > > HTTP/1.1 200 Ok > Content-Type: application/rdf+xml > Link: <http://example.org/user/23.n3>; rel="alternate"; type="text/n3" > Link: <http://example.org/user/23.html>; rel="alternate"; type="text/html" > ... > already doing the aforementioned with the Link headers :) however raises another question; is this okay in HTML <link rel="alternate" type="application/rdf+xml" href="http://example.org/user/23" title="RDF XML" /> <link rel="alternate" type="text/rdf+n3" href="http://example.org/user/23" title="RDF N3" /> ?
Received on Tuesday, 8 December 2009 17:32:10 UTC