- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:27:04 +0200
- To: "Xiaoshu Wang" <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Cc: "'Richard Newman'" <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>, "'Semantic Web'" <semantic-web@w3.org>
No FOAF uses content negotiation to return either an html page or rdf. See "GET my meaning?" [1] curl -L -H 'Accept: application/rdf+xml' http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/ Person or cwm.py http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/ --n3 Henry [1] http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/bblfish?entry=get_my_meaning On 30 Jul 2006, at 16:18, Xiaoshu Wang wrote: > --Richard, > >>>> Sorry, that's nonsense. Not only property URI's are not >> necessarily >>>> dereferenceable and the possibly available graph >> representation may >>>> or may not contain that statement - do you know about any >> FOAF client >>>> behaving as you're suggesting it should? I don't, and I know I >>>> wouldn't want to install it on my mobile phone of limited >> resources. >>> >>> Are you sure you are talking RDF? The only thing that is not >>> dereferencable is literal values because they are not URI. But >>> literal can only be an object, not subject and property. >> >> Not true. Only a subset of URIs are dereferenceable, and even >> fewer are dereferenceable to yield RDF. The following are a >> few examples: > > If the URI is a property and dereference it does not return a URI > is not a > good practice. I remember that the TAG is working on what is > supposed to be > put in the namespace. In FOAF's case, at least the URI is > dereferenable. > But the returned type is HTML. Here, if GRDDL is standardized, it > will > still return an RDF document. No one is required to make any URI > dereferenable. But the best practice should recommend so. If an > RDF engine > should follow all the links to retrieve all RDFs.
Received on Sunday, 30 July 2006 14:27:21 UTC