Xiaoshu Wang wrote: > --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. > If the URI identifies a concrete graph you're right, similarly if the URI identifies a concrete RDF/XML file. The high and the low resolution images may have their own URIs and for such an URI (the URI naming for example the image at high resolution) returning a subset of the data contained in the high resolution image is just wrong. But the example was a URI naming Danny's personal profile. This resource can be represented by a number of graphs, and yes, defining a technique for the server to find out which one is better is exactly the question. > [dropping: sparql-argument] > [dropping: reference to the general use-case I didn't find] > > [dropping: plea to end discussion] > cheers, reto
Received on Friday, 28 July 2006 19:42:54 UTC