W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > July 2006

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

From: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto@gmuer.ch>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:44:29 +0200
Message-ID: <44C8FB7D.1090105@gmuer.ch>
To: Daniel Larsson <daniel.larsson@servicefactory.com>
CC: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>, 'Danny Ayers' <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, 'Semantic Web' <semantic-web@w3.org>
Daniel Larsson wrote:
> Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote:
>> The webserver serving the resource <http://gmuer.ch/> delivers two
>> different XML documents depending if the Accept header is set to
>> "application/atom+xml" or to "application/rss+xml". XML clients get what
>> they want, whether they prefer RSS or Atom. How can I do something
>> similar for RDF oriented clients with different levels of understanding
>> of AtomOWL, AtomRDF, RSS 1.0 and/or RSS 1.1? Delivering several triples
>> with identical (or near identical) meaning for every assertion an saying
>> "sort it out when it gets to your home" doesn't seem ideal to me.
> To me it sounds like you're looking for a SPARQL endpoint, so your
> client can query for particular triples among the set describing the
> resource. What problem does "Accept-Vocabulary" solve that SPARQL doesn't?
Doing content negotiation on graphs using different ontologies is a
straight forward extension to the existing capabilities of HTTP making
it more powerful for a more semantic web which is more resource than
document oriented as the traditional web.

I don't think that vocabulary negotiation an the requirements it sets on
clients and servers cannot be compared with the possibilities of SPARQL
where the server my need to do complex operations like subgraph isomorphism.


Received on Thursday, 27 July 2006 17:44:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:18 UTC