- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:17:36 +0100
- To: Mischa Tuffield <mischa.tuffield@garlik.com>
- Cc: Dan Smith <das5@dcs.qmul.ac.uk>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 15:02 +0100, Mischa Tuffield wrote: > Which you can perform content negotiation on, so that if you : > request "Accept:application/rdf+xml" you would get back RDF > and if you request html you would get back an HTML doc, perhaps an > html page with the image, and a human readable representation of all > of the metadata. > and if you request image/jpeg (or whatever the correct MIME type is > for a .jpg file) you would get back the Image itself. > This would allow you to change the file format of your picture if ever > need be (i.e. from .jpg to .png for example), keeping the URI of the > image constant and neutral to file format. I don't think this is a sensible way to use content negotiation. An RDF file and an image are probably not representations of the same resource; so they should not share a URI. (With the possible edge-case of an image which is the visualisation of an RDF graph.) Perhaps: GET /images/example HTTP/1.1 Accept: image/png, image/jpeg, image/*;q=0.5 should return the JPEG, but: GET /images/example HTTP/1.1 Accept: application/rdf+xml should return a 303 See Other to a different URL (e.g. </data/images/example> or </images/example;about>) which would provide an RDF description of the image. -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Friday, 23 October 2009 15:18:24 UTC