RE: Semantic content negotiation (was Re: expectations of vocabulary)


> 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 ...


Received on Thursday, 27 July 2006 16:29:46 UTC