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

On 7/27/06, Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu> wrote:

> Obviously our view on what a URI represent is fundmentally different.  If I
> had an RDF document in something like:
>
> <> n1:x1 n2:x2 .
> n2:x2 n3:x3 n4:x4 .
> n4:x4 n5:x5 ...
> ...
>
> First, I consider all the assertions in the graph is my representation of
> the resource. Not just the first statement.  If I don't think they are, I
> shouldn't have put it in there.

Ok, fair enough. It's your choice.

> Tell me what kind of Accept-Vocabulary: header request, it won't step into
> the boundary of SPAQL?

There is overlap with SPARQL capabilities, for sure.

[resource/representation defs]

> What is your point? Does anywhere says partial?  Obviously, how you
> interpret "Representation" is totally different from mime.

Fine, the specs leave a lot of leeway.

 A shorter
> version of the article is not a part of the article.  A lower resolution of
> an image is not a part of the image ...

The image case is a nice one. A low-res bitmap can be generated by
sampling pixels from a hi-res bitmap. What you get is a subset of the
pixel data. Yet they could both be reasonably considered
representations of the same resource. A photo of my cat is a photo of
my cat, irrespective of the detail.

Similarly a hi-res prepresentation of my FOAF profile might contain a
few hundred statements. A low-res representation might only contain
these:

<> a foaf:PersonalProfileDocument ;
foaf:primaryTopic _:me .
_:me a Person .
_:me foaf:mbox "mailto:danny.ayers@gmail.com" .

My FOAF profile is what I identify as my FOAF profile, irrespective of
the details of the representation(s).

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

http://dannyayers.com

Received on Thursday, 27 July 2006 17:03:29 UTC