- From: Ruben Verborgh <Ruben.Verborgh@UGent.be>
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:15:57 +0000
- To: Magnus Knuth <magnus.knuth@hpi.uni-potsdam.de>
- CC: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>, "public-rww@w3.org" <public-rww@w3.org>
Hi Magnus, > you could represent the metadata and the content description of the media file in a machine understandable way in form of RDF. Of course; all I am saying is that the following are two different resources: – a media resource – its content description Hence, they need different URIs. > Nevertheless, it should be clear that a server must deliver the standard document when content negotiation is set to */*. More precisely, it should deliver: – a representation of the media resource on the media resources's URI – a representation of the description on the description's URI > Only in cases where the client asks explicitly for an RDF format, it should redirect the client to the respective RDF description of the file, which in case of a 303 see other redirect has its own URI. 303 is indeed fine: >> The 303 (See Other) status code indicates that the server is >> redirecting the user agent to a different resource —https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.4.4 So, different resource indeed. > Hence, I don’t see a problem in browsers accepting any format. Me neither. > Clients that are interested in RDF representations should set the accept header respectively. Yes, but they will generally _not_ get an RDF representation of the media resource; they might get a 303 redirect to the content description's resource. The problem in the original thread was that no distinction between the two resources was made. Best, Ruben
Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2017 14:16:33 UTC