- From: Stephen Williams <sdw@lig.net>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:52:06 -0700
- To: carmen r <_@whats-your.name>
- CC: semantic-web@w3.org
Generally speaking, I like the blob of typed data + blob of arbitrary content, standard format metadata solution. I tend to think that the best way to handle it is as two separate "files": /a.jpg and /a.jpg.meta or /a.jpg.meta.rdf or something. Better to negotiate type on .meta and use .meta.rdf in situations without mime type negotiation. sdw carmen r wrote: > say you GET some /a.jpg > > and additionally you want to return RDF about this image (tags, geodata, comments, distillations from EXIF) > > i asked about a GETMETA and was told thats synonymous with HEAD.. only true if your RDF/metadata is all in the header. > > so there is a Link/N3 header proposed. that feels kinda nasty to me. id rather use RDF to express all the headers (gaining flexibility, and eliminating the need for this hack), than embed RDF inside a particular field (which has the bonus of backwards compatibiltiy with unmaintained UAs > > > what about Multipart-Mixed reponses. eg returning image/jpeg data, as well as a text/n3 file. can Tabulator or any tool grok these kind of responses ? > > does anyone have a preference for one technique over the other? >
Received on Friday, 25 July 2008 02:52:49 UTC