Re: "Hash URIs" and content negotiation

I think that one could argue that either way.  The way I see it, the
resource should be decoupled from its representation.  Here, the resource is
the content of the document, while the representation is the language in
which it is written.  In the real world, though, it depends on the domain.

If you're building a document management system, in which you are
representing each physically printed document as a resource, you could argue
that it's semantically incorrect to demote various translations from
resources to representations, and I'd agree with you.

If, on the other hand, you have online user profiles that you are
dynamically translating to different formats (e.g. RDF, XHTML, and different
language versions thereof), it's probably more correct to treat the profile
as the resource and the translations as the representations.

-Pius

On 11/8/06, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> They are not the same. If they are documents (which they must be
> since they are associated with a language) then each rendition is a
> different document. They are certainly related, and that relation
> (that they about the same topic, but in different languages) ought to
> be explicitly represented.
>
> -Alan
>
> On Nov 8, 2006, at 10:31 AM, Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
>
> > - Alan
> >
> >> Don't know. Personally I prefer when a list of available
> >> languages is listed on the web page and I click where I want
> >> to go. This seems to be the current practice.
> >
> > Then you would need to give one resourse multiple identifiers.
> > Then, how can
> > someone know that http://www.example.com is the same as
> > http://www.english.example.com and http://www.chinese.example.com
> > and ....?
> > I am not sure how many languages there are in the world, but to
> > list all of
> > thems on every page does not seem to be an elegant solution to me,
> > would you
> > agree?
> >
> > Xiaoshu
> >
> >
>
>
>