- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 20:45:25 +0200
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: Read-Write-Web <public-rww@w3.org>
Thanks. I'll follow this guideline, and report back later. Henry Btw, for some context, the code is here: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/read-write-web/file/7eab55c485c6/src/main/scala/ReadWriteWeb.scala Henry On 5 Apr 2012, at 14:41, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > Good question, one which needs to be sorted out > and well documented. > > Some invariants I'd look for are > > - If I put(U) then I can get (U) afterwards. > > - I should be able to get anything I write converted on read using conneg > > - It may be useful to have URIs for the specific RDF/XML form, etc. > > I think the best way is to never use the ".rdf" over HTTP. > > On 2012-04 -04, at 19:04, Henry Story wrote: > >> Currently if I PUT a file with an extension such as .rdf or .ttl >> on a read-write-web server, should the server pay particular attention >> to those extensions? Or should it be agnostic about them? > > It should certainly never read anything into them. > It should look at the content-type to see what sort of a file is being PUT, > and then either store it with that metadata as it is, or if it > is in a typical config which uses extensions, it should force the > extension to > >> >> I suppose I am asking how close an rdf read-write-web server is to a >> web-dav server? > > It is pretty close, with limited WEBDav facilities, plus the SPARQL/Update patch facility > of course. > >> >> If I PUT foaf.ttl >> should a GET foaf.rdf then succeed? >> what about a GET foaf HTTP/1.1 ? > > I think that is bad practice, best to > PUT foaf and GET foaf with conneg translating on the fly, > with the file on the server being foaf.ttl typically > so that other extension-based things in the same filesystem > will do the right thing. > > >> >> Henry >> >> >> Social Web Architect >> http://bblfish.net/ >> >> >> > Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Friday, 6 April 2012 18:46:02 UTC