- From: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 17:32:36 +0200
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: Christopher Allan Webber <cwebber@dustycloud.org>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, public-socialweb <public-socialweb@w3c.org>
To refer back to the spec, "1.2 Serialization Notes" seems to be the section we are discussing: http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/#h-syntaxconventions On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org> wrote: > Consider this very realistic scenario: > 1a. Linked Data agent accesses AS server > 1b. it negotiates an RDF media type, and the server responds with JSON-LD > 1c. the agent stores the RDF data, possibly minting new resource URIs, > and re-publishes it as Linked Data > 2a. another Linked Data agent accesses the re-published data > 2b. it negotiates an RDF media type, and the server responds with > Turtle (or RDF/XML etc.) > > At this point, the AS data becomes "invalid" as per the specification, > even though the agents perfectly follow HTTP and RDF standards and > Linked Data principles. AS breaks content negotiation by restricting > the media type and disabling "the practice of making available > multiple representations via the same URI". > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 5:00 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: >> I would say that such an argument is silly, unfounded and full of hyperbole. >> >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 7:56 AM, Martynas Jusevičius >> <martynas@graphity.org> wrote: >> [snip] >>> >>> What do you respond to the argument that restricting media type in AS >>> breaks content negotiation, one of the architectural principles of the >>> WWW? >>> >> [snip]
Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2015 15:33:14 UTC