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

--Danny,

> 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" .

I don't know why you are constantly trying to disguise a clear "part_of"
relationship into somethingelse?  The Accept header value is in the format
MIME type/Quality.  For the image, the lower resolution is a poorer quality
of representation.  Bit wise, it can be a subset of a higher resolution
image but doesn't have to be.  But RDF is a directed labeled graph. I am not
sure how do you define which subgraph is "better" than the other.

In your case, isn't what you are suggesting, "O.K. give the desciption of
this guy with the values of only these few foaf properties."  If this is the
case, find a service and do SPAQL.  Why mess it up in HTTP?

But let's stop this case-by-case argument.  It is not useful.  Take a
general case as I have given before and try to make a concrete proposal. If
you think there is a definition of lower/higher resolution of RDF
representation, propose it in a concrete way, define it and make suggestions
on how the server should response.  Go ahead and do it and see what you will
end up with it.  Also, think about how much it is going to affect the
ontology deployment.  Because if most people won't honor your quest, why
bother?  If you do end up with taking all SPAQL functionalities (that is my
guess), propose it to TAG and see if they think it is a good idea to run
SQAQL at the transportation level.

I think we had enough conversation about this subject and it is time to drop
it, don't you agree?

Cheers,

Xiaoshu

Received on Thursday, 27 July 2006 20:02:29 UTC