- From: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:23:46 +0000
- To: "Hausenblas, Michael" <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Leo Sauermann <sauermann@dfki.uni-kl.de>, semantic-web@w3.org, Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>
Hi Michael, On Sun, 2007-12-23 at 09:22 +0100, Hausenblas, Michael wrote: > Now, due to X-mas approaching, let's relax and quiz a bit > (multiple choice): > Since it's Christmas... :) > > Q.I: What is http://sw-app.org/mic.xhtml#i? > > 1. A URI > 2. A URL > 3. A foaf:Person > 4. Michael Hausenblas > 6. An XHTML fragment > 1. A URI > Q.II: What does http://sw-app.org/mic.xhtml#i identfiy? > > 1. A foaf:Person > 2. Michael Hausenblas > 4. An XHTML fragment > 5. Depends on who looks at it: A Web UA 'sees' a XHTML fragment, > a SW agent a thing of type foaf:Person > 6. Dunno until I do an HTTP GET > Impossible to say without more information, e.g. some RDF or prose that says what it's intended to denote. Depending on how I perform a GET against it I might get some information that might allow me to conclude that it denotes an XHTML document fragment or some part of an XML DOM or perhaps something else if I get some RDF back. That's not a bug because you as the URI owner get to control the representations it serves, but it can be very easy to say the wrong thing sometimes. If you didn't have the hash then there would be no ambiguity though: the representation format doesn't affect what the URI denotes (although the response code might). Happy Christmas, Ian
Received on Monday, 24 December 2007 15:28:20 UTC