Re: ConNegging on Description Pages (was RE: Southampton Pub data as linked open data)

Ted,

Again: The TAG disagrees.

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/alternatives-discovery.html

Content negotiation is for selecting between different variants of a  
*single* resource. It's not for redirecting you all over the place.

Best,
Richard



On 30 Jul 2008, at 15:31, Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote:

>
> Hi, Tom --
>
> * Tom Heath [7/30/08 9:19 AM +0100] wrote:
>> If I've understood you correctly, you're suggesting that the HTML
>> document about a pub should 303 to the RDF/XML document about the
>> pub if RDF/XML is requested, and vice versa. (please correct me
>> if I've misunderstood)
>
> The above is correct -- if I ask for RDF/XML and the server cannot
> provide that but *can* provide HTML, it should redirect me (303) to
> the HTML (which I may decide I don't want to retrieve!).  If I ask
> for HTML and the server cannot provide that but *can* provide RDF
> (whether RDF/XML or Turtle/N3 or ...), it should likewise redirect
> (303) to that alternative (which, again, I may not pursue).
>
> I should never get a `200 OK` delivering a document format not in
> my Accept: header.  This really applies whether or not you, as the
> page author, have control over the web server.  If it cannot provide
> the content form requested by a client, the server should *always*
> say so, offering whatever other form(s) it might know about as
> alternatives via 303.
>
> (And of course, the information in all 303-associated formats should
> be the same, though it be presented differently.)
>
>
>> Is conneging on description pages desirable? i.e. if I request
>> http://revyu.com/people/tom/about/rdf
>> in my regular browser (e.g. vanilla Firefox), should I be
>> redirected to http://revyu.com/people/tom/about/html ?
>
> Yes!  Because *Firefox* wants HTML.
>
> Firefox doesn't generically know how to handle application/rdf+xml,
> nor application/x-turtle, nor application/turtle, and really only
> pretends it knows how to handle text/rdf+n3...
>
> It's important to use the right tool for the job.  I can't very
> well drive screws with a hammer, nor nails with a screwdriver.
> Similarly, an RDF browser doesn't do well on HTML; an HTML browser
> doesn't do well on RDF.
>
>
>> I don't think so, for the simple reason that I might be a developer
>> wishing to study/debug the RDF.
>
> If I'm a developer wishing to study/debug the RDF, I should use
> a tool which explicitly requests the RDF serialization(s) I want
> to study -- which might be Turtle/N3, or RDF/XML, or... -- or
> at least indicates Accept: *.
>
> (Note -- this tool *might* be an *extended* Firefox, which *might*
> be able to handle RDF/XML, in which case that should be included
> in the Accept: header issued for relevant requests.  You specified
> vanilla Firefox in your example, so that's what I pursued.)
>
> Be seeing you,
>
> Ted
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> A: Yes.                      http://www.guckes.net/faq/ 
> attribution.html
> | Q: Are you sure?
> | | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
> | | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
>
> Ted Thibodeau, Jr.           //               voice +1-781-273-0900  
> x32
> Evangelism & Support         //         
> mailto:tthibodeau@openlinksw.com
> OpenLink Software, Inc.      //              http:// 
> www.openlinksw.com/
>                                 http://www.openlinksw.com/weblogs/uda/
> OpenLink Blogs              http://www.openlinksw.com/weblogs/ 
> virtuoso/
>                               http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/
>    Universal Data Access and Virtual Database Technology Providers
>

Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 14:57:37 UTC