- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:55:10 +0000
- To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <swlists-040405@champin.net>
- CC: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote: > On 11/03/2010 11:04, Toby Inkster wrote: >> On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 02:24 +0000, Nathan wrote: >>> If I have multiple representations of a resource which I consider >>> equal, let's say one of each of the following: RDF+XML, RDF+N3, SVG >>> >>> Then should all three representations be considered equivalent? >> They certainly *could* all represent the same thing. Whether they *do* >> represent the same thing is a judgement call. > > Well, if they are accessible via the same URI, using content > negociation, then my reading of the HTTP specification is that they > *must be* representations of the same resource. > > Not sure what Nathan means by "equivalent"... that I consider them semantically equal representations of a resource. for instance "the same" RDF encoded as N3 and RDF+XML. >>> Is it correct that all representations must have consistent fragment >>> identifiers in order to be considered equivalent? >> A fragment identifier should not identify different things in different >> representations. (Though it may be unrepresented in some or all of the >> representations.) > > Is that so? > If I recall correctly the URI RFC (no internet when writing the mail, > sorry), the semantics of fragments identifiers depends on the retrieved > content-type. So why would they *have* to identify the same thing? > > That being said, I agree it sounds like a good practice. Especially if > you consider an RDF/XML and a Turtle representation of the same RDF > graph... If their fragment identifier were not consistent, that would be > a serious headache... But is this rule written somewhere? yeah in awww http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#fragid
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2010 22:55:59 UTC