RE: Semantic content negotiation (was Re: expectations of vocabulary)

--Danny,

> Re: BioRDF: URI Best Practices
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-semweb-lifesci/2006
Jul/0141.html
> 
> Re: expectations of vocabulary
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2006Jul/0068.html
> 
> [I've at least one ulterior motive in wanting to see this 
> discussion evolve further. When I get time I want to play 
> with the idea of "semantic cookies" - put the URI of the 
> agent-user's FOAF profile in a
> Link: header, server adjusts response appropriately]

>From my hasty look on the semantic-web, I think it is two different problem.
One concerns if we should describe what "kind" of a resources is.  The other
seems worry about what kind of closure one should get.

Using HTTP content negotiation to request different Closure of the RDF is
not appropriate.  The Content negotiation is designed for data-format not
the closure specific to RDF.  The worst of it is it will put a big burden on
the content provider.  By that suggestion, an ontology won't be simply
placed on the web as an simple text RDF document.  You must implement a lot
of server logic to do so, I don't think it will fly.

Xiaoshu

Received on Monday, 24 July 2006 14:26:38 UTC