- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:56:56 -0500
- To: Curt Tilmes <Curt.Tilmes@nasa.gov>
- Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Feb 22, 2013, at 10:37 , Curt Tilmes <Curt.Tilmes@nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> On 02/22/2013 10:03 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> On Feb 21, 2013, at 16:28 , Curt Tilmes <Curt.Tilmes@nasa.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> We can "do the right thing" whether you ask for
>>> "application/provenance+xml" or "application/rdf+xml"
>>
>> Absolutely. That is what will happen when things are being set up,
>> it is only a matter of adding a few lines to the .var files.
>>
>> The question arises, though: what should be the answer to
>> application/xml? RDF/XML? Prov-XML? Nothing?
>
> Good question.
>
> If you explicitly accept application/provenance+xml (or the URL
> explicitly includes ".provx"?) you get PROV-XML,
>
> and if you accept application/rdf+xml you get PROV-O in XML,
>
> But if you only accept application/xml perhaps you should get an HTTP
> status 300 "Multiple Choices" with links to both? Or a 406 Not
> acceptable?
>
> What happens if you
>
> Accept: application/xml, application/provenance+xml,
> application/rdf+xml
>
> ?
>
> Give the PROV-XML?
>
> Is there any good prior art for handling this sort of thing?
To be honest... I do not know. My *guts* say that I should return prov-xml, because I did not specify RDF but I am not sure.
Technically, the .var file includes (well, may include) a priority ('q') value for the different formats, so the issue is not technical...
Ivan
>
> Curt
----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Friday, 22 February 2013 15:59:20 UTC