--Danny > Sure. But no-one is talking about breaking resources into > pieces, just providing alternate representations of the same > resource. In RDF terms those representations may have > graph/subgraph relationships with each other, but that's > absolutely irrelevant as far as HTTP is concerned. > HTTP does not mandate any particular part-whole logic. A > resource can be anything that has identity, but the relevant > specs make no demands on how identity between two resources > is determined beyond the syntax of their identifiers. Obviously our view on what a URI represent is fundmentally different. If I had an RDF document in something like: <> n1:x1 n2:x2 . n2:x2 n3:x3 n4:x4 . n4:x4 n5:x5 ... ... First, I consider all the assertions in the graph is my representation of the resource. Not just the first statement. If I don't think they are, I shouldn't have put it in there. Tell me what kind of Accept-Vocabulary: header request, it won't step into the boundary of SPAQL? > For reference: > > resource > A network data object or service that can be identified > by a URI, as defined in section 3.2. Resources may be > available in multiple representations (e.g. multiple > languages, data formats, size, and > resolutions) or vary in other ways. > > representation > An entity included with a response that is subject to > content negotiation, as described in section 12. There may > exist multiple representations associated with a particular > response status. What is your point? Does anywhere says partial? Obviously, how you interpret "Representation" is totally different from mime. A shorter version of the article is not a part of the article. A lower resolution of an image is not a part of the image ... XiaoshuReceived on Thursday, 27 July 2006 16:29:46 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:41:00 UTC