- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:46:13 +0100
- CC: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>
Nathan wrote: > Jeni Tennison wrote: >> # Details >> >> In section 4.1, in place of the second paragraph and following list, >> substitute: >> >> There are three ways to locate a URI documentation link in an HTTP >> response: >> >> * using the Location: response header of a 303 See Other response >> [httpbis-2], e.g. >> >> 303 See Other >> Location: http://example.com/uri-documentation> >> >> * using a Link: response header with link relation 'describedby' >> ([rfc5988], [powder]), e.g. >> >> 200 OK >> Link: <http://example.com/uri-documentation>; rel="describedby" >> >> * using a ‘describedby’ ([powder]) relationship within the RDF >> graph created by interpreting the content of a 200 response, eg: >> >> 200 OK >> Content-Type: text/turtle >> >> PREFIX :<http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/> >> <http://example.com> :describedby >> <http://example.com/uri-documentation> ; >> . >> > > Seeking clarification, > > Given some arbitrary thing and a description of that thing, let's say: > > <http://example.org/uri> is described by > <http://example.org/uri-documentation> > > Previously we could GET /uri and either: > > a) follow the value of the Location header in a 303 response to get to > /uri-documentation > > b) follow the value of the Link header to get to /uri-documentation > > With this proposal though we'd be able to say issue a GET to /uri with > an Accept header value of text/turtle, and the server could return back > the contents of /uri-documentation, with a status of 200 OK, and where > the text/turtle response contained: > > PREFIX :<http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/> > <http://example.com> :describedby <http://example.com/uri-documentation> PREFIX :<http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/> <http://example.org/uri> :describedby <http://example.org/uri-documentation> c+p error, apologies. > Is this correct? > > TIA > >
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 13:47:34 UTC