- From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:47:06 -0800
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 12/21/2011 8:47 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> Jeremy: >> I am advocating that the IRI denotes the graph >> >> > Why not the Graph Container? In my mental model of the world, we take a URL like: http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns when you do a get, and ask for content type application/rdf+xml you get an RDF/XML document that encodes a graph. To me, the RDF/XML document is the representation, and the graph is the resource. Thus, at least on my reading of the usual usage of RDF, there is some preference for semantic interpretations in which I(<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns>) is that graph If I wanted to denote the RDF/XML document separately, I might in this case, where the web server provides distinct URLs, use http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns.rdf for the RDF/XML document, and not the graph. I am not sure what to make of the intent behind the 302 redirect. At some level, I would expect that it is really for the owner of the website to be clear in their mind as to what resource each URL they serve actually is. I probably should read Web Architecture ..... isn't there some stuff about an information resource. I think for me then an RDF graph is an information resource, and a graph container, such as an RDF/XML document is a distinct information resource, but in practice web sites might blur the distinction Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2011 20:47:56 UTC