- From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 9 May 2025 14:22:38 +0200
- To: Dominik George <nik@naturalnet.de>, public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
Hi Dominik, we have recently added an informative section about that in RDF Concepts: https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#section-version-announcement Note also that the `version` parameter is expected to be one of `1.1`, `1.2-basic` or `1.2`, so that would cover both different versions of RDF and different profiles of RDF 1.2. Appart from those minor syntactic difference, it is in line with what you wrote below. pa On 14/04/2025 17:22, Dominik George wrote: > Hi, > > while considering the compatibility between RDF 1.1 and 1.2 software, I > came across the notion of RDF profiles defined in [1]. > > I am wondering how applications should treat the ambiguity of the media > types of the standard RDF serialisations, especially when doing HTTP > content negotiation: If a server software emitting RDF data is asked for > such data, it would be helpful to know whether the client can handle RDF > 1.2 or not. > > If a client, by specifying a header like "Accept: text/turtle; profile=basic", > declares that it doesn't support triple terms, but the graph data I am > to server is known to contain triple terms, my server could reply with > 406 Not Acceptable instead of generating triple data that the client > won't be able to understand anyway. > > Cheers, > Nik > > [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#conformance
Received on Friday, 9 May 2025 12:22:40 UTC