Re: URL +1, LSID -1

> does not identify an RDF 
> resource, it represents our concept of some protein. There just 
> happens to be an RDF representation at 
> But most of the concepts 
> we use do not (anytime soon...) have such a representation.
But returning a 200 code on "" 
does not suggest the URI identifies a "concept".  It suggests the 
resource is an electronic resource and, otherwise, it creates confusion 
under certain circumstances.  For instance, if I want to make a comment 
on your web page, say good job on 
""? How do people know if the 
"good job" is made on the work of the HTML page or on the "concept" that 
you intended to?

What I have done in "" is to always 303 to a 
resource depending on Conneg.  If the request is for RDF, redirect to 
the RDF page else an HTML page.  IMHO, I think it would be nicer and 
less confusing if you make "" a 
skeleton and 303 redirect to either 
"" or 
"" depends on the value of 
Accept header.

That's my two cents.


Received on Thursday, 12 July 2007 15:41:27 UTC