Re: HTTPS for RDF URIs?

On 01/31/2014 01:46 PM, Alfredo Serafini wrote:
> Hi all
>
> regarding opaque uri: maybe a difference in the scheme could be seen as
> a complementary to a different type extension.
> If i'm referring for example to the resource http://wiki/page.html or
> http://wiki/page.rdf i probably expect two different representation on
> the same resource, from a technical REST-like approach. Should we
> interpet also those as opaques?
http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-opacity
"For example, the ".html" at the end of "http://example.com/page.html" 
provides no guarantee that representations of the identified resource 
will be served with the Internet media type "text/html". The publisher 
is free to allocate identifiers and define how they are served. The HTTP 
protocol does not constrain the Internet media type based on the path 
component of the URI; the URI owner is free to configure the server to 
return a representation using PNG or any other data format."

Besides above, I find .rdf *very* confusing! with RDFa one can get RDF 
graph serialized in HTML, or get same graph as any of of other 
serializations: 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-rdf11-new-20131217/#section-serializations

To my understanding Content Negotiation enables requesting particular 
representation of given resource
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_negotiation

> Sorry if this is probably a sort of recurring question.
> If the formats for type extension are acceptable, the best would be in
> using also the schem much like in the same way. For example I suppose
> that I could have also have something like: file://wiki/page.html, for a
> local copy. Is this acceptable in theory?
Based on reasoning above *type extensions* do NOT seem to me acceptable 
for requesting different representation of the same resource!

Received on Friday, 31 January 2014 13:22:50 UTC