- From: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:20:18 +0200
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- CC: Michel_Dumontier <Michel_Dumontier@carleton.ca>, Benjamin Good <goodb@interchange.ubc.ca>, Natalia Villanueva Rosales <naty.vr@gmail.com>, public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, Rees Jonathan <jar@mumble.net>, Mark Wilkinson <markw@illuminae.com>
Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > from http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/alternatives-discovery.html > > [...] > > While I'm not always a fan of TAG findings, I think this one makes a TON > of sense. I'll agree with that, but where do they talk about having canonical URIs for each specific representation? I understand well the need for representation-independant URIs, but I don't see the use of a generic identifier for e.g. P12345 in FASTA format: If you really wanted to make any statements about that representation, you'd better attach them to the actual URL, given that there are many ways to represent P12345 in FASTA format (every server seems to do so differently). >> Are there any standards/tools that know what to do with 303 responses? > > Some. An influential tool by a certain Tim Berners Lee called Tabulator > does. I've understood that it is considered a courtesy to respond 303 to > things which are not gettable as such, and to provide information about > related information, in this case the specifically formatted versions. I don't feel comfortable with showing a minimalistic page with some weird acronyms when someone enters e.g. http://purl.uniprot.org/uniprot/P12345. Ideally there would be a standard way for a client to request "what representations are available". Perhaps I could return 303 if no Accept header is set, don't know if that is a good idea?
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2007 07:20:46 UTC